JRC FORESIGHT STUDY How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

ANNEXES

Fabiana Scapolo, Peter Churchill, Vincent Viaud, Monika Antal, Hugo Córdova, Peter De Smedt

2014

EUR 27210 EN

Joint Research Centre European Commission

Joint Research Centre Foresight and Behavioural Insights Unit

Contact information Joint Research Centre Rue du Champ de Mars 21, B-1050 Bruxelles/Brussel [email protected] Tel. +32 2295 8650 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

Legal Notice

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

Cover images: © Mirek Weichsel, #FLI-FL6266, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY, #SPH-F001-0125, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © IDreamStock, #IDM-128680013, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY, #PL-C012-4472, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © McPHOTO / ADR, #NSA-mc0131086, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Maximilian, #H44-10891013, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Frank Jahnig, #ESY-004929062, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY, #SPH-F004-8943, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Horrillo i Riola, #2479, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © HENNING DALHOFF, #SPL-C019-5221, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Mike Agliolo, #EEA-BK0746, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Bjorn Holland/Image S, #ISO-IS09A6F5H, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Jochen Tack, #ibljot02263307, 2015. Source: panoramastock.com © Fanatic Studio, #WE128846, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © SuperStock, #SSB-456-1866, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be © Andreas Fischer, #ESY-000439471, 2015. Source: Belgaimage.be page 12, © EvrenKalinbacak, #135467558, 2015. Source: Shutterstock.com page 12, © Thomas_Zsebok, #214469986, 2015. Source: Shutterstock.com page 12, © hans engbers, #257241205, 2015. Source: Shutterstock.com page 13, © Karramba Production, #131684642, 2015. Source: Shutterstock.com page 14, © Zudy, #164920982, 2015. Source: Shutterstock.com

JRC94793

EUR 27210 EN

ISBN 978-92-79-47771-3 (PDF)

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) doi:10.2788/253732

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

The full report is found at the following doi: 10.2788/80985

Abstract

Standards are very important as they provide requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. They contribute to remove technical barriers to trade, leading to new markets and economic growth for industry. They also facilitate technology transfer and they contribute to ensure safety of products thereby affecting the daily life of citizens. This report ‘How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?’ is the outcome of a foresight process looking at how standards and standardisation can become even more relevant policy tool supporting different European policies. The study has especially looked at the areas where Europe drives innovation, where the development of new products and processes could lead to new trade of goods, services and technologies. The foresight process has dealt with standardisation by using a holistic approach. It explored at how effective standards can be developed within a European industrial landscape vision able to contribute to jobs and growth in a sustainable manner. The report provides a clear overview of the evolution of the European production system and illustrates what are the drivers of change influencing the future production system. The Industrial Landscape Vision was used to identify the its implications on the European Standardisation System and it highlights priorities for the development of standards in the future. FINAL REPORT OF THE FORESIGHT STUDY

How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

ANNEXES

Fabiana Scapolo, Peter Churchill, Vincent Viaud, Monika Antal, Hugo Crdova, Peter De Smedt

2014

European Commission DG Joint Research Centre 2 Annex 3.

Overview of Standards and Standardisation

3 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Table of Contents

1.The European Standardisation Policy...... 5 1.1 Overview...... 5 1.2 From the “New Approach” to a Wide European Standardisation Policy...... 5 1.3 The “Standardisation Package”...... 6

2. Standards and Standardisation...... 6

3. Types of Standards and Standardisation Bodies...... 7

4. Formal International Standardisation System...... 8 4.1 The US Standardisation System...... 8 4.2 The Japanese Standardisation System...... 8

5. The European Standardisation System...... 8 5.1 The European Standard Setting Process...... 9 5.2 The Business Model of the European Standardisation System...... 11

6. Overall Relevance of Standards...... 12

7. Benefits of Standards for EU Economy...... 13

8. The Participation in Standardisation...... 15

9. Innovation and Standardisation...... 15

10. IPR and Standardisation...... 16

11. Trade and Standardisation...... 16

12. Glossary...... 17

4 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

1. The European along with recognition that the old approach was not adequate drove the change. This resulted in a separa- Standardisation Policy tion of the essential requirements or politically driven goals required to products which are set up in the 1.1 Overview legislation from the way to comply with those goals, defined by the stakeholders in the form of standards. The European Commission standardisation policy This way of legislation, separating the goals from the started in the 1980s as an element of the comple- means, has been called the “New Approach”. tion of the Internal Market for goods. Since then, standardisation has increased its importance and The “New Approach” initiated a new relationship be- scope in the political agenda. The latest landmark tween the European Commission (EC) and the Eu- was in 2010 with “Europe 20201”, Europe’s growth ropean Standards Organisations (ESOs). Since then strategy for the next 10 years. the ESOs6 and the National Standards Organisations (NSOs) have a recognised status with respect to the The seven flagship initiatives unfold this strategy EC. The European standardisation policy focuses on for Europe, and the standardisation role is defined two main aspects. through four of them: (i) “Digital Agenda for Europe”, (ii) “Innovation Union”, (iii) “Resource-Efficient Eu- The first is the European Standardisation System rope” and (iv) “An Industrial Policy for the Globali- (ESS), which is an institutional infrastructure led by sation Era”. On this basis the European Commission the three ESOs producing public goods (standards), has launched in 2011 the “Standardisation Package” mainly under private initiative. Here the EC contrib- to align its standardisation policy to the new strate- utes to their functioning by financially supporting gy. The 25 October 2012, the legislation part of the the ESOs secretariats general, maintaining the in- proposal, Regulation (EU) No 1025/20122 has been formation procedure that obliges NSOs to withdraw published in the Official Journal, after adoption by conflicting standards, as well as financing societal the Parliament and the Council. It has entered into stakeholders and a SME association (NORMAPME) to force on January 2013. ensure a balance of the system and keeping a role as observer of the ESOs. In return, the ESOs ensure Standards were historically a tool for engineers but harmonisation of technical standards produced by they have broadened their scope becoming a tool for consensus in Europe and provide up-to-date techni- policy and legislation but also for consumers in their cal specifications to comply with Directives. contractual relation with companies. Citizens are not often aware on the impact that standards have in Secondly the European Commission issues man- their daily lives. dates requesting the ESOs to develop standards to support political and legislative targets. As a result there are two main types of mandates (but one man- 1.2 From the “New Approach” dating procedure): (i) to support legislation and (ii) to to a Wide European support policy. Standardisation Policy i. Legislation mandates ask for the development The Information Directive3 and the New Approach of standards that comply with the essential Council Resolution4 and Directives5 in 1985 were the requirements or other provisions of Directives starting points for the use of standards as a policy or Regulations. Mandated standards provide a tool. The need to eliminate technical barriers to trade presumption of conformity to products facilitating for the completion of the Internal Market for goods internal trade and are mainly concerned with health and safety;

1 COM(2010) 2020 Final

2 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012

3 Directive 83/189/EEC

4 Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a new approach to technical harmonization and standards

5 More information on www.newapproach.org and on the webpage of DG 6 CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are the three recognised European standardisation Enterprise and industry organisations

5 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

ii. Policy mandates do not provide any legal consists of a Communication and a legislative pro- advantage to industry, but create market posal with its impact analysis. The Communication conditions in line with certain political goals “on a strategic vision for European standards” has and are mainly concerned with environmental proposed the use of European standardisation as a protection, interoperability and compatibility. broad based policy tool, addressing policies ranging from supporting European competitiveness, to pro- In order to achieve a coherent standardisation poli- tecting the consumer, improving accessibility of dis- cy the Commission has an Annual Union Work Pro- abled and elderly people to tackling climate change gramme for European Standardisation. and the resource efficiency challenge under sustain- ability perspective. The Communication also set out The system has major advantages: objectives related to improving the standardisation process; this includes an annual work programme; •• All conflicting national standards are withdrawn, speeding up the standardisation process; the condi- eliminating barriers to trade; tionality of the financing of the ESOs on performance criteria; a better integration of standardisation and •• The purposes covered by harmonised standards research; and the need to raise standardisation are set up by the Directives, ensuring their awareness through education. legitimacy; The standardisation regulation, which enters in force •• The standards are developed by those who the 1st January 2014, consolidates the legal basis for possess the state of the art, mostly industry, European standardisation10; enhances European Com- but the European Commission reserves the right mission cooperation with ESOs; improves support to to withdraw the presumption of conformity7 if consumers, encourages small business (SMEs), en- the political goals (mainly safety, environmental vironmental and social organisation to participate in protection, consumer protection and quality) are the standardisation process; recognises that Global not sufficiently addressed; ICT standards play a more prominent role in the EU; increases the number of European standards for ser- •• Due to the open and consensual process of vices if there is a demand from business; and set up a standardisation, standards are more likely to committee for the approval of mandates. create overall benefits;

•• The system is more innovation friendly as European standards tend not to be prescriptive; 2. Standards and

•• The standards are easier to update than Directives Standardisation making the system more able to keep up with technological developments. It is important to separate the concepts of standards and standardisation. A formal definition of standards Standardisation has been increasingly used in other and standardisation can be found at the glossary section. areas than the internal market for goods. A good ex- ample is the development of the GSM in 1990, which Standards are developed for products, processes, was a success of innovation policy. A more recent ex- management and services. A standard is a voluntary ample is the Eco-design Directive8 and its associated formal agreement on doing something in the same standards for environment protection. This marks an way, repeatedly. expansion of the role of standardisation as recognised in the 2008 European Commission Communication9 Standardisation is the process to create a standard, linking standardisation and innovation. This path was and includes all the supporting activities that ensure extended further in 2010 in the Europe 2020 strategy the proper functioning of the system; such as the in- through the accompanying flagship initiatives. Stand- frastructure to gather the experts and stakeholders ardisation prominent role will continuously grow in who create, approve and update standards, the distri- EU policies targeting innovation, environment, global bution of standards, the financing of the activities, etc. competitiveness, interoperability and services. There are not only a considerable amount of types of standards but there are also a great variety of or- 1.3 The “Standardisation Package” ganisations developing standards. Standard organ- isations do not create standards themselves, they In response to the Europe 2020 strategy and the gather experts, mostly from industry, to develop, flagship initiatives, in June 2011 the European Com- revise and amend standards. They also support the mission launched the “standardisation package”. It standards dissemination by publishing them, coor- dinating work items, conducting public consultation, 7 The use of standards referenced in the European Union Official Journal allows producers to be given a presumption of conformity with the undertaking lobbying, making agreements, etc. essential requirements of the CE marking Directives.

8 Directive 2009/125/EC 10 It will replace Directive 98/34/EC (Standardisation part only), Decision 1673/2006/EC (Financing), Decision 87/95/EEC (ICT standardisation) and 9 COM(2008) 133 final amends several Directives (objections to harmonised standards).

6 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

3. Types of Standards and •• Not specificallylegally recognized as a standards developer; Standardisation Bodies •• Not necessarily consensus-driven. Standardisation bodies are commonly classified as “formal” or “informal”. Another classification distin- Company standards are developed by a company or guishes between formal, industrial and company trade association. As for industrial standards they can standards11. The standardisation landscape is rapidly sometimes become a de facto standard because their evolving and competition between emerging stand- widespread use and acceptance. In some cases they ardisation models are making classifications chal- can receive formal approval as it was the case with lenging. Given the importance of standards on the PDF developed by Adobe and now adopted by ISO. markets and ultimately on citizens lives, the question of legitimacy, democracy, market acceptance, legal The strategic choice for a company to adopt company recognition, openness, and the treatment to intellec- standards depends on a number of considerations: tual property rights are the points where differences among standards organisation are claimed. •• The choice between having more control on the output or reaching large acceptance of the result. Formal standard refers to a specification that has Typically companies with market dominance been recognized by the governmental authorities and prefer company standards. In this case internal that is made by a formal standardisation body or processes can be imposed on suppliers; exceptionally standards development organisations (SDO). Formal standards should have the following •• The time to the market of the service or product. characteristics: Because the fast innovation pace of ICT the company standard approach may be preferred as •• Established by all stakeholders to fulfil the it can produce a faster deliverable. market need; “De facto” and “de jure” standards are also referred •• Open to representatives of any stakeholder group; to. The distinction between the categories is not clear12. The main issue of this classification is that in •T• ransparent processes; “de facto” standards the emphasis is put on market acceptance, whereas in “de jure” the emphasis is put •• Published rules and procedures; on the organisation developing the standard.

•• Legally recognized by governmental authorities; De facto standards are those that have achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market •• Output can normally be followed/used without forces, and are usually developed by less formal pro- charge by any party; cedures. The Microsoft word format .doc is an exam- ple of a “de facto” standard. •• Approval procedures driven by consensus; De jure means by right or by a lawful title, and de jure •• Established specifically orf the facilitation of standards are those approved by formal standardi- standards development. sation bodies following formal procedures for their approval. It is not clear where standards developed Industrial standards are those produced by SDOs by open consortia standardisation organisations be- or consortia, a group which is large and diverse and long to this category or not. On the other hand, non- therefore difficult to characterise. The majority of full consensus deliverables made by formal organ- them are in the ICT domain and many are recognised isations (e.g. CEN-CENELEC Workshop Agreements) for their open and transparent processes. Neverthe- should not be considered de jure standard. less some may exhibit in practice at least one of the following characteristics:

•• Established by a closed group, often for commercial advantage (consortium); they could, on the other hand be completely open;

•• Produce standards as a by-product to their main activity (e.g. trade association);

•• Output may not be publicly available or may be restricted in use by patents;

11 Based on CEN (2002) and Hesser W., Feilzer A., and De Vries H. (2006) 12 Hesser W., Feilzer A., and De Vries H. (2006)

7 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Fig 1. Adapted from Ulrich Blum presentation in Porto, November 2007

4. Formal International NFPA18 International, IEEE19 or ASME20 International. The system is overseen by ANSI (The American Standardisation System National Standards Institute) who accredits the standards development organisations, watches The three formal international standards organisa- the system to ensure minimum of duplication and tions are ISO13, IEC14 and ITU15. They establish the conflict standards and represents US interest in the international standards on general, electro-technical formal international bodies. and telecommunications issues respectively. Their members are representatives of the countries, nor- mally their national standards organisations for ISO 4.2 The Japanese and IEC. ITU members include, in addition to the na- Standardisation System tion state members, industrial, commercial, scientific and financial organisations. All international stand- Japan has opted for a more government controlled ards are purely voluntarily in application. CEN and structure. The Japanese standardisation system CENELEC are not direct members of ISO and IEC but has three bodies. JISC (Japanese Industrial Stand- the Vienna and Dresden agreement (respectively) ards Committee), a part of the METI (The Ministry allow the quick adoption of international standards of Economy, Trade and Industry), represents Japan as European standards if required by their members. interest in the formal international bodies. JSA (Jap- ETSI has a Memorandum of Understanding with ITU anese Standards Association) has been progressive- for cooperation and reducing duplication, and ETSI is ly merging its activities with JISC. Together they de- a sector member of the Telecommunication Stand- velop and distribute Japanese standards. There is a ardisation Sector of ITU (ITU-T). third body dedicated to telecommunications, named TTA (Telecommunications Technology Association).

4.1 The US Standardisation System 5. The European Unlike Europe, the US does not have a centralised standardisation structure. There are over four hundred Standardisation System standards development organisations covering different sectors. Many of them are international such The European Standardisation System (ESS) is as ASTM16 International, Underwriters Laboratories17, quite unique. It is organised around two levels, a national level composed by the National Standards Organisations (NSOs) and a supranational level 13 International Organisation for Standardisation (www.iso.org) composed by the European Standard Organisations 14 International Electrotechnical Commission (www.iec.ch)

15 International Telecommunications Union (www.itu.int) 18 National Fire Protection Association – international (www.nfpa.org) 16 Formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials. (www.astm.org) 19 IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (www.ieee.org)

17 UL is a global independent safety science company developing standards 20 Formerly known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (www.ul.com) (www.asme.org)

8 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

(ESOs) namely CEN (European Committee for 5.1 The European Standard Standardisation), CENELEC (European Committee for Setting Process Electrotechnical Standardisation) and ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). There is a portfolio of around 50.000 deliverables produced by the ESOs.22 These deliverables consist CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are responsible for general, of documents of different nature, not always compa- electro-technical and telecommunication standards rable between the three organisations. respectively. They are independent not-for-profit or- ganisations. The ESOs adhere to the basic principles CEN and CENELEC produce mainly European Stand- of standardisation: openness; transparency; consen- ards (1411 EN - 89% of total production during sus; voluntary use of standards; technical coherence 2011); ETSI produces mainly Technical Specifications and primacy of international standardisation. (2676 TS - 89% of total production during 2011) and only a small number of European Standards (81 EN CEN and CENELEC share a common management – 3%). This difference is explained by the fact that centre (CEN-CENELEC Management Centre - CCMC) ETSI deals mainly with interoperability standards in and have similar structures and functions, while ETSI the ICT sector, where speed and time to the market has a different organisation and business model. is crucial for industry. Whereas the participation model of CEN and CENE- LEC is based on national representation (i.e. the Each deliverable has its own development process. National Standards Organisations), ETSI’s model is The European Standards are the most formal, re- based on direct participation of a wider scope of quiring the higher level of consensus (and 71% of stakeholders (e.g. NSOs, universities, research bod- weighted vote). They are produced by the three ESOs. ies, industry and consumer organisations). It takes an average of three years to be produced, with the approval phase accounting for a considera- The NSOs plays an important role in CEN and CENE- ble part of that time. LEC. They implement European Standards, trans- late, sell and distribute CEN and CENELEC publica- When CEN or CENELEC elaborate a new European tions (European standards, Workshop Agreements, Standard, they set up a European technical committee CEN-CENELEC guides, CEN-CENELEC Technical Spec- under the responsibility of one of their national ifications, CEN-CENELEC Technical Reports…), dis- members. At the same time NSOs create the so- patch delegations to Technical Committees, Subcom- called “National Mirror Committees” (reflecting the mittees and Working Groups of CEN and CENELEC European technical committee on the Member State and participate in decision making on the technical, level), which enable all interested parties (enterpri- managerial and political level. ses, consumers, public authorities, NGOs, etc.) to participate in the creation of the standard at national To support the preparation of European standards level and in their own language. These National Mirror the NSOs set up mirror committees. They also pro- Committees elaborate a national position for the vide secretaries to CEN/CENELEC Technical Commit- drafting and voting of a European standard, which is tees and Subcommittees. This model provides indi- then presented at the European technical committee. rect access to the individual stakeholders, which are members of their correspondent NSO. The work done by ETSI is carried out in committees and working groups composed of technical experts The ETSI model is based on direct membership of or- from the Institute’s member companies and organ- ganisations such as industry, academia, NSOs or any izations. These committees are often referred to as interested stakeholder which membership has been “Technical Bodies”. Where a ETSI deliverable is being agreed by the General Assembly of ETSI. Their most converted without modifications into a EN, the tech- common publications are ETSI Technical Specifica- nical bodies submit the draft document for the formal tions (TS); however they produce a limited number of voting to the NSO. Otherwise there is an intermediate European Standards. The latter are produced under step where the NSO perform a Public Enquiry. request of the European Commission and follow a special procedure that matches the one used by CEN Other deliverables require less formal, limited con- and CENELEC. ETSI also produced other deliverables sensus. The most common examples are the CEN and such as ETSI standards (ES), ETSI Group Specifica- CENELEC Workshop Agreements (CWA) and the ETSI tions (GSs), ETSI Guides, ETSI Technical Reports (TR) Technical Specifications (TS). They are different in na- and ETSI Special Reports (SR).21 ture but serve the same purpose of speeding up the standardisation process. A CWA is an agreement de- veloped and approved in a CEN or CENELEC Workshop, which is open to the direct participation of anyone with an interest in the development of the agreement, and with no geographical limit. The development of a CWA is faster and more flexible than the European Stand- ard process, and lasts on average between 10 and 12

21 See the glossary in Annex 2 for a definition of these deliverables. 22 CEN, CENELEC and ETSI Annual Reports for 2012

9 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

months. ETSI produces mainly TS as a way to short- As an example of a standards drafting process, en the standardisation process duration. A TS is ap- the scheme for the production of European proved by the Technical Committee that drafted it, Standards in CEN and CENELEC is reproduced be- and not the whole ETSI membership as it is the case low. As previously mentioned, the length and or- for a European Standards. ganisation of the standards drafting process vary among organisations and according to the kind of Other deliverables are produced by ETSI in a more flex- standards being developed. ible way, including the Group Specifications (GSs) pro- duced by Industrial Specification Groups (ISGs) that are More information on these specificities is avail- organised around a set of ETSI work items addressing able on the websites of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. a specific technology area, and following voting rules, work programme and deliverables that they self-define The table below details the production of deliver- and approve. They are designed for quick establishment ables by CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in 201223. and delivery in order to fulfil urgent market needs.

Deliverables in 2012 CEN CENELEC ETSI

European Standards (EN) 1014 438 53 CEN and/or CENELEC Workshop Agreements (CWA) 17 0 - CEN and/or CENELEC Technical Specifications (TS) 66 4 - CEN and/or CENELEC Technical Reports (TR) 46 4 - CEN and/or CENELEC Guides 5 6 - ETSI Standard (ES) - - 19 ETSI Technical Specifications (TS) - - 2427 ETSI Group Specifications (GS) - - 8 ETSI Guides - - 4 ETSI Technical Reports (TR) - - 198 ETSI Special Reports (SR) - - 7 TOTAL 1148 452 2716

As an example, the following figure illustrates the European Standards process in CEN and CENELEC.

23 CEN, CENELEC and ETSI Annual Reports for 2012

10 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

5.2 The Business Model The Berger study states that the system is financed of the European primarily by industry (93-95%), followed by national Standardisation System governments (around 3-5%) and European Commis- sion / EFTA contributions (around 2%). The fact that The European Commission estimated24 that the cost industry bears the bulk of the cost of the system, for the creation of all European standards produced together with the voluntary character of standards, in 2009 was approximately € 3,000 million extrapo- seems to indicate that, for industry, the benefit out- lating the results of a Roland Berger study in 200025. weighs the cost. According to the study, these costs result mainly from the expenses of industry experts participating Two generic distribution channels coexist in the ESS. in the process (around 82%), followed by the opera- ETSI provide access to their standards for free down- tional costs of National Standards Organisations and load at its website and sell them on DVDs, where- other national institutions (16%) and the costs of the as CEN and CENELEC standards are sold through management centres of European Standardisation the NSOs. Membership fees and services are other Organisations (around 2%). On the basis of the relat- sources of revenue for the ESS. ed costs of experts, organisation of meetings, travel, etc., the EC estimated an approximate average cost The figures below give a simplified view of revenue for creation of a standard of around € 1 million. for the ESS:

Fig 2. Scheme of the financing of CEN, CENELEC and NSOS (up) and ETSI (down)

24 European Commission (2011). Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact Assessment on European Standardisation. SEC(2012) 671 final. 1 June 2011

25 Roland Berger (2000). The future financing of the CEN system. Study commissioned by CEN. Roland Berger was commissioned to make a study on the cost of standardisation in 2000

11 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

The revenue structure is shown in the next table.

CEN and CENELEC EU + EFTA Type of revenue ETSI b Management Centre a NSOs c

Public contribution 41% 21% 23%

Sale of standards 0% 0% 26%

Membership + Services 56% 67% 37%

Others 3% 12% 14%

Total revenue (€ millions) 19,8 22,5 859

Source: a Annual report 2011; b Aggregate data from 2008 EC study; c Annual report 2011

The pubic contribution to support the ESS amounts to 6. Overall Relevance € 210 million (23% of the total revenue) and the sales of standards generates € 223 million (25%). Most of of Standards the costs of the ESS is carried at national level26. Standards are all around us making our life easier Digitalisation has made it very difficult for the NSO without even being noticed. Just imagine how our lives to avoid the free circulation of copies of their de- would be if light bulbs didn’t fit into lamps, each ATM liverables, which jeopardises the current business had its own incompatible credit card systems or there model. How to adapt the business model to assure was not internet. the continued financing of the ESS, while making it attractive for industry to continue to invest in Standards are necessary and beneficial for the society the process and bear the major part of the cost is as they can create economies of scale, facilitate and a challenge. generate trade, enable innovation and raise the com- petition level. On the other hand they can be used in the opposite sense, by creating intentionally barriers to trade, preventing innovation and protecting monopolies.

Some examples of the impact of standardisation

The standardised container has radically affected the intermod- al international trade. Created in 1968 it has reduced drastically the time to load and unload cargos, it has facilitated the switch between different transport systems (ship, truck and train) and has allowed the mechanisation of the ports. The result is that the transport of goods is much faster and cheaper.

The ICT industry is based on standards. GSM is a European stand- ard that has revolutionised communications in the world. Nowa- days smart phones rely on a multitude of standards for talking, making video conferences, surfing the internet, using the GPS sys- tem, paying for shopping, etc. They work as a technological plat- form upon which many innovative ideas in the form of applications are developed.

The first high-speed rail lines were built in the 1980s and 1990s as national infrastructure projects. Each system operated with his own rail lines, voltage and signalling standards. Locomotives operating internationally have to be equipped with a variety of expensive on-board systems. Sometimes the interoperability is even impossible and the trains have to stop at borders in order to change locomotive. As a result of the numerous signalling systems to be integrated into the Thalys, the cost of manufacturing each train is increased by 60%. The lack of European standards intro- duced these obstacles making the connection and integration of the different European networks problematic.

26 Data from internal study made by the EC in 2008. ETSI sales of standards have not been included.

12 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

The prevailing standard is not always the most technical advanced solution. Several factors can produce all the users to be locked in to a certain standard. The QWERTY keyboard is a classic example of such a situation. Developed to avoid the jam of the keys on the mechanical typing machines, the layout is not optimized for speed of typing. Other keyboard layouts are believed to be more speed efficient, especially with computers, such as the one developed by Dvorak.

7. Benefits of Standards Compatibility standards reduce barriers to trade for small entrants and permits innovation and the de- for EU Economy velopment of “add on” products to work alongside, or enhance well established products. On the other From a macroeconomic perspective standardisation hand, closed standards can be used by incumbents has today a positive impact on the economy, as it fa- to avoid competition. cilitates trade, increases efficiency and enables inno- vation. A recent study published by DIN27, the German Variety reduction standards limit the specifications standardisation body, assesses that standards rep- for a service or product to a certain range. The ma- resent an economic benefit of € 16.77 billion a year jority of standards fall into this category. Variety in Germany; this is 0.72% of Germany‘s GDP. Sim- reduction generates economies of scale and econ- ilar studies carried in the UK28, France29, Australia30 omies of learning in production as they allow spe- and Canada31 corroborate this order of magnitude. cialisation and mass production. They reduce stock- A study commissioned by ISO to Roland Berger and holding costs; they reduce the production risks faced published in 2010, estimates the benefits of stand- by suppliers (but increase competition) and allow ards for the automobile industry to be between € 23 companies to concentrate their investments. In some and € 45 billion per year32. cases they can hamper innovation and competition. The effect on transaction cost has a double effect; Standards provide technical functionalities to achieve on one hand choices are easier but on the other not economic and social benefits. The following categori- all customers are satisfied by the standardised vari- sation33 of functionalities and purposes of standards eties. There is a trade-off between choice and price. does not pretend to be exclusive, nor exhaustive. A well-known standard of this type is the interna- Some standards comply with several functionalities tional paper standard, ISO 216, which defines the A4 at the same time. They do however cover the vast format used in most of the world except for North majority of purposes for standards today. The text America. The widespread use of A4 paper has many also describes some of the positive and negative advantages other than economies of scale in paper economic effects from a microeconomic perspective. production itself. It avoids the need to rework docu- ments to fit different formats and allows consumers Compatibility (or interoperability) standards define to choose between competing paper brands, cal- physical or virtual relationships between independ- culate shipping weights from the number of pages ent entities for the purpose of interoperability or (most A4 sheets have the same weight), and fit pa- communication. Most of a country’s infrastructure pers from different sources into the same envelopes uses compatibility standards to connect a number and binders. of disparate private and public entities, for example railway standards and network industries. Interoper- Performance and minimum quality standards ability standards are the backbone of the ICT indus- allow consumers to trust the quality or the perfor- try. Compatibility standards create network effects; mance of a product or a service before purchasing and reduce transaction cost as costumers are en- it, decreasing transaction costs and increasing trust. sured about the interoperability of software, hard- They reduce adverse selection. These standards are ware or products within their existing systems. Com- developed to specify acceptable product or service patibility facilitates division of labour as it makes it performance along one or more dimensions, such as easier to integrate different suppliers’ sub products. functional levels, performance variation, service life- time and efficiency. A standard that specifies a mini- mum level of performance often provides the point of 27 Blind, K. and Golucowicz, K. (2011) departure for competition in an industry. As they give 28 DTI (2005) also some direction on how to achieve the targets, they 29 Miotti, H. (2009) contribute to knowledge dissemination. Unnecessary 30 CIE (2006) high levels of quality or performance standards can 31 Haimowitz, J. and Warren, J. (2007 create barriers to entrants and to trade. An example 32 Bryden, A. (2010) of a performance standard is the minimum unleaded 33 Based on Guasch, J.L. and al. (2007), Hesser W., Feilzer A., and De gasoline octane rating (called Euro Super) standard Vries H. (2007)., Swann, P. (2000), Swann, P. (2010) and Temple P. and Williams G. (2002). EN 228: 2008. The most known quality standards are

13 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

the ISO 9000 series which are for assessing and en- Usability standards facilitate the use of products and suring quality of management processes. software. They enhance the interaction of humans with objects and systems. They include ergonomic Measurement and test standards establish methods standards, design for all standards (e.g. for disabled for describing, quantifying and evaluating product and elderly people) or software interface standards. attributes such as materials, processes and func- tions. These standards allows for coherence between Health, safety and environment standards aim to en- laboratories, manufacturers and public authorities sure a minimum level of protection for people and establishing a common technical language in which the environment. A group of those standards are fo- to compare physical attributes and convey descrip- cused on workers’ conditions and processes, others tive technical information. They enable precision on consumers or users, and a third group is focused manufacturing and help to demonstrate superi- on the environment. They reduce risk, increase trust or performance of products and services. Equally, for the buyers and reduce transaction costs. If the measurement standards help to reduce transaction requirement levels are unnecessarily high they could costs, reduce the risk by traders and enhance trust introduce barriers to entry and trade. Hazardous between them. Unit standards, such as the number- waste operations, noise levels, personal protection ing system and weights and measures are the most equipment, toy safety or low voltage installations are typical and ancient examples. examples of the scope of these standards.

Information and labelling standards are developed Security standards are designed to prevent malicious to help customers and consumers to make informed acts such as sabotage, theft, unauthorised access or choices and to correctly use the products. They set up illegal transfer. One of the most used security stand- rules on how to communicate product characteristics, ards is ISO/IEC 27002:2005 Information technology reducing transaction costs for buyers. Food packag- -- Security techniques -- Code of practice for infor- ing displays information about the nutritional value mation security management. Security standards of the content, cloth labels inform about the textile apply mainly to cyber security, data protection and material and give cleaning instructions and electrical cryptology, but they can be found as well in nuclear appliances labels indicate their energy efficiency. or border control domains.

Type of standards on your mp3 player

Variety reduction: the “jack connexions” for the headphones come in three sizes: 6.3m 3.5mm and 2.5mm. Mp3 players use 3.5mm. The dimensions and characteristics of the plugs are fixed in the interna- tional standard IEC 60603-11 Connectors for frequencies below 3 MHz for use with printed boards Part 11: Detail specification for concentric connectors.

Quality and performance: Sound quality parameters such as signal- to-noise ratio, frequency response or distortion are defined by the standard IEC 61606- 2 Audio and audiovisual equipment – Digital audio parts – Basic measurement methods of audio characteristics – Part 2: Consumer use.

Measurement and test: The technical specifications of the mp3 player must be measured following standardised methods and units. The latest are defined at ISO 80000-1:2009 Quantities and units -- Part 1: General.

Information and labelling: Mp3 players have information engraved in their body such as the CE marking or the electric current required for charging the batteries.

Compatibility & interoperability: The music is encoded in MP3 standard which allows different devices to read the same music files. The mp3 codec is part of the MPEG-1 standard set by ISO/IEC 11172-3:1993 Information technology -- Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s -- Part 3: Audio.

Usability: The mechanical pressure of the headphones on the ears can be a source of discomfort. DIN Standard 45500 Part 10 limits the maximum permissible contact force for headphones aimed at limiting this parameter.

Safety, health and environment: Default settings on personal music players set at safe exposure levels, as well as clear warnings on the adverse effects of excessive exposure to high sound levels. The European standard EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus – Safety requirements

Security: Apple online music store iTunes introduces a proprietary standard on the files, preventing them to be played by unauthorized computers and raising criticism for their lock in effect.

14 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

8. The Participation in Nevertheless the major cost for developing standards is covered by the industry. Beside the general benefits Standardisation discussed in the previous section there are other stra- tegic motivations at the company level to be involved Standards clearly produce economic benefits for the actively on standardisation. These include: society in general and for their users in particular. Standards are considered by some economists as •• Push for standards that would avoid changes in a quasi-public good as their use by one company their production process. does not reduce its availability to others, and it is difficult to exclude any company from using them. •• Push for standards upon which industry can exploit Nevertheless to develop a standard is a resource their own advanced products or services. costly activity. It requires a considerable investment of time of experts, travelling cost, venue cost, etc. •• Drive the application of certain legislation (see New Approach Directives below). Moreover, firms investing in standards development cannot capture all the value generated. This is known •• Push for standards that would contain their own as the “free rider” effect and means that there is a patents. risk of some standards not being developed, despite the common benefits generated, if the developers are •• Anticipate the market demand by observing new not able to recover their investment. In many cases, standards development. capturing the value of participating on standardisa- tion activities is even more difficult for SMEs which •• Prevent harmful standards, e.g. standards that imply could explain their relative low participation com- costly process changers or with third part patents. pared with their market share. Actually, the lack of experts willing to participate on standardisation work is a recurrent mentioned problem of the system. 9. Innovation and The value of standards is not reduced to their tech- nical content. Their development by an open process Standardisation to which all stakeholders have participated to reach consensus provides the standards with a large mar- Standards play an important role in innovation be- ket acceptance and certain social legitimacy. There- cause37 they: fore, it is important to have an appropriate participa- tion of all stakeholders. However some companies •• Encode the state of the art providing a minimum will have more at stake in the development of a cer- level playfield, contributing to the push for tain standard, encouraging them to invest more into competition, serving as a basis for technology their development to drive the result in their favour. watch and enabling technology transfer; Inversely, citizens cannot justify the cost of partici- pating at the individual level as the cost overwhelms •• Create common understanding, allowing cooperation the benefits. among the scientific and industrial communities;

To meet this issue, standardisation societal stake- •• Enable interoperability between new and existing holder organisations have been created. In Europe products and services and contributes to the they represent the consumers (ANEC34), the environ- technology convergence; ment (ECOS35) and the workers (TUTB36). Besides that, there is an association to represent the interests of •• Provide a platform for further innovation (like the SMEs (NORMAPME). These associations introduce 3GGP or internet); balance in the standardisation process. These asso- ciations receive public subsidies from the European. •• Reassure customers and consumers about safety and quality increasing the market acceptance.

Standards have demonstrated a stronger effect on innovations supported by network effects (IT, electric cars, etc).

34 European consumer voice in standardisation (www.anec.eu)

35 European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation (www.ecostandard.org) 37 Blind, K. and Gauch, S. (2009).; Anvret, M., Granieri, M. and Renda, A. 36 European Trade Union Confederation (www.etuc.org/tutb) (2010) and European Commission presentation

15 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Fig 3. Standards on support of innovation (Source: European Commission)

To define the state of the art, standards should Theoretically it would mean that the patents must reflect the latest advances on sciences and tech- be declared during the development of the standard, nologies that are possibly implemented given the that they should be essential for the functioning of maturity of the market. There are currently ef- the standard and the licenses of the patents should forts to bridge the research and the standardi- be open to everybody at a reasonable price. Never- sation community as a mean to make standards theless those terms are not defined precisely enough better incorporate the latest scientific develop- which leads sometimes to abuse of the system in an ments and to feed back the scientific communi- anti-competitive and anti-innovative way. ty on areas where standardisation would benefit from further research. On the other side a balance Conflicts between patents and standards are more and have to be kept in order to make the implemen- more common, especially in the ICT sector but not ex- tation of the standard accessible for companies, clusively. If a patented technology is incorporated into including SMEs. Standards should be performance a standard, the patent holder could block the use of the based keeping them flexible and innovation friendly. standard or make their use expensive through royalties.

10. IPR and Standardisation 11. Trade and

Standards and patents have in principle two oppo- Standardisation site purposes. Whereas standards aim at innovation dissemination, patents prevent competitors from us- European standardisation plays an important role ing a new technology or make it costly to do so. In on the development of the EU internal market; in- a competitive context, it is not uncommon that the ternational standardisation aims at reducing techni- best technology for a technical standard is a propri- cal barriers to trade in the global markets. The three etary technology, protected by one or more patents. formal international standards organisations are ISO, IEC and ITU which have similar scope as CEN, Ideally, when a standard is being developed, it should CENELEC and ETSI. Nevertheless, the ESOs are not be known in advance how many essential standards members of the formal international standards or- would hold and how much the royalties will cost; al- ganisations, but NSOs are. lowing stakeholders to take decide how to proceed on the standard development. WTO, as the organisation facilitating global trade, has set up the following standardisation principles: In order to have the best technical standards, ESOs transparency, openness, impartiality, consensus, ef- have a FRAND policy towards patents. FRAND stands ficiency, relevance and consistency. Standardisation for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. issues are an integral part of any trade negotiation and regulatory dialogues between countries and re- gions as the lack of harmonisation can create tech- nical barriers to trade.

16 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

12. Glossary Standardisation (as defined by ISO/IEC Guide 2 – 2004): “Activity of establishing, with regard to actual Adverse selection is the result of information asym- or potential problems, provisions for common and re- metry. When buyers can not differentiate between peated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum high and low quality goods or services it is likely that degree of order in a given context. NOTE 1 In particular, high quality, which is generally more costly. is driven the activity consists of the processes of formulating, out. Information and labelling standards, based on issuing and implementing standards. NOTE 2 Impor- quality and performance standards are used to di- tant benefits of standardization are improvement of minish the information asymmetry. the suitability of products, processes and services for their intended purposes, prevention of barriers to trade Barriers to entry is the difficulty for firms to enter a and facilitation of technological cooperation.” particular market. Companies try sometimes to use standards as a way to prevent new entrants. Standard: ISO/IEC Guide 2 – 2004 definition: “Doc- ument, established by consensus and approved by a Consensus (as defined by ISO/IEC Guide 2-2004): recognized body, that provides, for common and re- “General agreement, characterized by the absence peated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for ac- of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any tivities or their results, aimed at the achievement of important part of the concerned interests and by a the optimum degree of order in a given context. NOTE process that involved seeking to take into account Standards should be based on the consolidated results the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile of science, technology and experience, and aimed at any conflicting arguments. NOTE Consensus need not the promotion of optimum community benefits.” imply unanimity”. Given the economic impact of the development of a standard on companies, this is not A similar definition with more details is given by the always an easy process. World Trade Organisation (WTO) in its Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Applica- Division of labour is the fragmentation of the pro- tion of Standards: duction into complex supply chains allowing increase in efficiency, specialisation and interconnection. It “Document approved by a recognized body that pro- has been one of the drivers of globalisation. Variety vides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines reduction, quality, performance and interoperability or characteristics for products or related processes standards have enabled this fragmentation facilitat- and production methods, with which compliance is ing outsourcing. not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclu- sively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking Economies of scale are cost advantages that a firm or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, obtains due to increased volumes of production. process or production method.” Mass production and automation of tasks are pos- sible thanks to variety reduction, interoperability and State of the art (as defined by ISO/IEC Guide 2-2004): measurement standards. developed stage of technical capability at a given time as regards products, processes and services, Harmonised standard is a European standard elabo- based on the relevant consolidated findings of sci- rated on the basis of a request from the European ence, technology and experience Commission to a recognised European Standards Or- ganisation to develop a European standard that pro- Technology transfer is the dissemination of skills, vides solutions for compliance with a legal provision. knowledge, methods and procedures that enable ex- Such a request provides guidelines which requested ternal entities to exploit them. Standards codify essen- standards must respect to meet the essential require- tial production knowledge contributing to this transfer. ments or other provisions of relevant European Union harmonisation legislation... Transaction cost is the cost beyond the price asso- ciated to an economical exchange. The main sorts Market acceptance relates to the perception of cus- of transaction costs are search and information tomers towards a product or a service. It is the result costs, bargaining and decision costs, policing and en- of some form of cost-value analysis (conscious or un- forcement costs. Standards reduce transaction cost conscious) which can include parameters such as en- through labelling and information standards and vironmental friendliness, safety, beauty, novelty, etc. those standards that assure buyers about character- istics important for them. Network effect appears when the value of a product increases with the amount of total use. Economists distinguish between direct network externalities (e.g. more people with mobiles phones increase the value of having a phone) and indirect network (e.g. more people buying the same car increase the availability of spare parts).

17 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

18 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Annex 5.

Implications of the Industrial Landscape Vision 2025 on Standards & Standardisation

19 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 21

1. Business Environment...... 22 1.1 Global Integration...... 22 1.2 Value Chain Optimisation...... 23 1.3 Dynamic and Sustainable Business Models...... 23 1.4 New Innovation Schemes...... 23 1.5 New Business Partners...... 24 1.6 Skills & Talents...... 24 1.7 Customer Involvement...... 25

2. Infrastructure...... 26 2.1 Smart & Interoperable Physical Infrastructure...... 26 2.2 ICT Infrastructure...... 27 2.3 Knowledge Infrastructure...... 28 2.4 Financial Infrastructure...... 29

3. Materials...... 30 3.1 Materials & Reusable Parts For Sustainability...... 30 3.2 Advanced Materials For Performance...... 31

4. Knowledge Management...... 32 4.1 Data Capture...... 32 4.2 Knowledge Generation...... 33 4.3 Intellectual Property...... 34

5. Services...... 34 5.1 Services For Customers Management...... 34 5.2 Services For Production...... 35 5.3 Services For Business...... 36

6. Technologies & Production Processes...... 36 6.1 Resource-Efficient & Clean Production Processes...... 36 6.2 Flexible, Smart & Customer-Oriented Technologies...... 37 6.3 Human-Centered Factories...... 38 6.4 Digital Factories...... 38 6.5 Logistics & Supply Chain...... 39 6.6 Holistic Design...... 39

20 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Introduction

Build upon the Industrial Landscape Vision 2025 (ILV 2025), the objective of this complementary doc- ument on standards and standardisation is to analyse and describe the need for standards and for evolution of the European Standardisation System against each component of the Production and Con- sumption System.

Based on an expert report produced by Prof. Dr. Knut Blind and completed by desk analysis as well as direct outputs from the workshops, this report aims at providing a general overview of standardisation issues relat- ed to each component of the Production and Consumption System.

The analysis for each component is structured according to the following scheme:

1. Current State of Standards; 2. Identified Gaps orf Standards to Enable the ILV 2025; 3. Impacts of the ILV 2025 on the European Standardisation System

The information about current standards and standardisation activities is based mainly on searches into the ISO Online Browsing Platform (OBP)1 to identify international standards, the CEN search platform2 to identify published standards and standards under development, and the European Mandates web-based application3 used to consult standardisation, programming and study mandates assigned to European Standards Organi- zations (ESOs). However, these brief overviews do not attempt to cover all available and relevant standards and standardisation activities. The search has in general been finished by the end of 2012.

1 www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search

2 http://esearch.cen.eu/esearch

3 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/mandates/database/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.welcome

21 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

1. Business Environment Identified Gaps for Standards

Further geographic differentiation of the value chain 1.1 Global Integration and increasing specialisation of the companies are boosting the needs for coordination, and therefore Current State of Standards for standards able to facilitate integration. Stan- dards are also required to foster alignment between The development of industrial markets in emerg- the European requirements and the production con- ing countries – mainly the BRICS4, the next-115 and ditions in the emerging countries. some African countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda – creates further opportunities for Europe- In order to support the European industry in its ef- an manufacturing firms and the whole European forts to access emerging markets, shared standardi- economy, but also new challenges. These emerg- sation initiatives and stronger collaboration with key ing markets with additional customers represent countries like China, India or Brazil in international indeed an important opportunity for growth – more standardisation bodies are required. They will how- than the European markets – but they generate also ever not be sufficient if national requirements in the new competitors for both local, European and global certification process are still misused as technical markets. Europe has already experienced significant barriers to trade. Therefore, the relevance of nation- outsourcing of its production and services to these al standards should be called into question, and the emerging economies. An additional constraint is now hurdles imposed by discriminating national certifica- the regulation of the governments of these countries, tion and accreditation systems should be abolished. which requires more and more domestic production In addition, the positioning of European interests in of originally imported products. Finally, the intensity international standardisation processes has to be of competition has also increased at the global level, strengthened to foster the competitiveness of Euro- with firms responding through new strategies aiming pean industry and the vision of European society in at increasing productivity and better exploiting econ- relation to future grand challenges. omies of scale within global value chains.

The key role of standardisation in relation to all these Possible Impacts on the European issues is widely acknowledged. As a matter of fact, Standardisation System standardisation activities reflect quite well the glo- balisation of economy since they have already shift- The key challenge for the European Standardisation ed from the national to the international level (e.g. System (ESS) lies in the tension between the defence key role of ISO and ICT-related international stan- of the interests of European companies, and the dardisation industrial fora and consortia). However, compromises needed with more and more interna- to the exception of China, most emerging actors are tional players of the global value chain when defin- not yet / sufficiently involved in the international ing international standards. This is exemplified by the standardisation activities, and major players of the current free trade negotiations underway between world economy are still actively publishing nation- the EU and the USA. It is all the more sensitive that it al standards to gain or secure competitive advan- can lead, on one side, to increased outsourcing of Eu- tage for the domestic industry, and protect nation- ropean-based production to emerging countries, and al markets. This broad share of national standards on the other side, to the reduction of the conflicting generates significant barriers to international trade, national standards that create barriers to trade for especially in the BRICS countries. For example, Man- European companies. To succeed in this challenge, a gelsdorf6 found evidence that the stock of national higher level and more effective engagement of Eu- standards in China hinders European exports, where- ropean Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) in all as European standards are no trade barriers for Chi- international standardisation activities is required, nese exporters. Furthermore, not only idiosyncratic with a strong support from national standardisation national standards generate a problem for interna- bodies of Member States in the defence of the Eu- tional trade, but also the implementation of nation- ropean interest. al certification or accreditation procedures7, which might be even based on international standards. ESOs also need to seek more collaboration with emerging countries outside the formal standardisa- tion framework (e.g. ISO technical committees), for example through joint bilateral initiatives with the BRICS countries on specific issues (e.g. current col-

4 Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa laboration on biofuels with Brazil) or capacity build- ing programmes in developing countries not yet in- 5 Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam volved in international standardisation. 6 Mangelsdorf, A. (2011). The role of technical standards for trade between China and the European Union. In Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 23 (7), pp. 725-743. A collateral issue arises with the internationalisation

7 Blind, K. and Mangelsdorf A. (2012). The Trade Impact of ISO 9000 – of standardisation activities. Indeed, many European Certifications and International Cooperation in Accreditation. In 17th companies are already focusing their standardisation EURAS Annual Standardisation Conference, Standards and Innovation”. Proceedings 2012 ed. by Marta Orviska and Kai Jakobs, pp. 21-33 activities on the international level, skipping the dis-

22 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? cussions that occur at the European level with oth- Standards ensuring compatibility between the pro- er kinds of stakeholders, such as representatives of prietary interfaces used by different actors could consumers and SMEs, trade unions and environmen- also be developed. tal groups. Consequently, the appropriate representa- tion of these actors in the setting of European and international standards becomes more difficult. This 1.3 Dynamic and Sustainable trend is also increasing when standards help Europe- Business Models an companies further exploiting economies of scale to gain competitiveness. Indeed, it leads to a further Current State of Standards concentration of multinational firms that eventual- ly dominate the standardisation process even more. Almost no standards are addressing business mod- Thus, safeguards are needed to ensure the right rep- els, due to their highly competitive nature. However, resentation of consumers and citizens in international the trend towards digitalisation of the economy has standardisation activities, and the ESS should have a been supported by the promotion of eBusiness, which proactive role in defending this principle. is strongly dependent on efficient and widely accept- ed standards. A key process within eBusiness is the invoicing. Recently, a series of CWAs on eInvoicing 1.2 Value Chain Optimisation has been published by CEN. They include a European data model including implementation guidelines, an Current State of Standards adoption programme compliance guidelines, a docu- ment addressing the legal requirements, an assess- In addition to their globalised nature, value chains ment of new business processes and technologies have become more and more complex because they for eInvoicing, a framework for the emerging net- involve an increasing number of very heterogeneous work infrastructure of eInvoicing service providers stakeholders, often highly specialised in a particular throughout Europe, as well as a dedicated CWA to area, who need to be coordinated so as to respond to foster the uptake of eInvoicing by SMEs. current challenges (e.g. closer integration of various products and services, securing supply of materials, reduction of overall logistic costs, etc.) Identified Gaps for Standards

As a main provider for common languages, specifi- Standards are needed for the measurement of the cations, methods and processes for interoperability overall performance of business models, i.e. non only and compatibility, standardisation has obviously a economic but also social and environmental. Indeed, key role to play in the optimisation of value chains, companies are now expected to achieve profitable and it already did so in many areas. As an example, growth, environmental friendliness and social re- and as stressed by one of the Europe 2020 Flag- sponsibility at the same time. ship Initiatives, “standards have played an important role in promoting broadband mobile services and open systems with “interoperable standards”, which enable 1.4 New Innovation Schemes information to be used for different purposes in the value chain automatically without further manual in- Current State of Standards tervention”8 Even though standardisation and innovation can be seen as two antagonistic processes at first sight, the Identified Gaps for Standards role of standardisation as a tool to bring innovation to the market has been acknowledged in many policy To increase supply chain efficiency, existing stan- documents and initiatives. In 2008, the Communi- dards need to be implemented in a consistent way by cation COM(2008)133 ‘Towards an increased contri- all stakeholders. The update or creation of series of bution from standardisation to innovation in Europe’ standards with harmonised but differentiated guide- stressed that “standardisation that is lively and strong lines for implementation – according to the size and has the power to accelerate the access of innovation the nature of businesses (firms, SMEs, service pro- to both domestic and global markets.” It mentioned viders, factories, etc.) – could help reducing variation in particular the role of standardisation in giving in implementation. innovators “a level playing field facilitating interop- erability and competition between new and already Data exchange and interface standards are increas- existing products, services and processes”, and the ingly needed to optimise information flows among the use of standards to diffuse knowledge and facilitate heterogeneous stakeholders of the value chain, espe- application of technology, which “may then trigger cially because the integration within this value chain is innovation, in particular non-technological innovation increasingly done through virtual environments. in the service sector”. Since then, the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives, in particular Innovation Union9

8 Supporting innovation in services, Department for Business Innovation & Skills 9 COM(2010) 546 final, ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative. Innovation Union’

23 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

and Resource-Efficient Europe10, as well as the new Identified Gaps for Standards Regulation on European Standardisation, highlighted the role of standardisation as a policy instrument to If a wider range of stakeholders engages in stan- enhance innovation in Europe. dard-setting activities, standardisation itself will contribute actively to a new way of collaboration be- As a result, the CEN-CENELEC Management Cen- tween actors of the value chain than had traditional- tre established an Innovation Directorate in or- ly few interactions with each other. der to promote standardisation and its benefits to unreached sectors and markets. Besides, the STAIR Joint Strategic Working Group was created 1.6 Skills & Talents to provide “strategic advice to CEN and CENELEC Technical Boards in order to reach an integrated ap- Current State of Standards proach and develop the links between research and innovation and standardisation”. CEN also set up in The move towards the Knowledge Economy requires 2008 the CEN/TC 389 ‘Innovation Management’ a larger share of highly qualified workers with an to “provide organizations with tools, in the form of ever-increasing broader set of skills for almost all standardisation documents, to ensure a more sys- manufacturing sectors. Not only is it challenging in tematic approach to innovation and optimise the terms of education policy, but also in terms of de- planning and management of all aspects fostering mography considering the ageing population of Eu- their innovation capabilities”. rope which will lead to a shrinking workforce.

Innovation is brought by an increasing number of ac- Despite its crucial importance, the skill dimension tors, and this trend will become more important in is traditionally not addressed by formal standardi- the future. A guide on user-driven innovation is being sation activities, mainly because universities are re- prepared in Denmark. sponsible for the development of the curricula for the various Bachelor, Master and PhD studies, and sector specific organisations for changing existing Identified Gaps for Standards and developing new training schemes. However, there is undoubtedly a strong demand for more for- More open standards are required to support new mal standardisation activities in that field, which has innovation schemes that involve increasingly het- already been identified by the ICT industry and the erogeneous and small players, who do not have the European Commission in several communications11 financial and human resources to access formal related to eSkills and eLearning. standard-setting processes or to pay for expensive standards. Since the establishment of the CEN ICT Skills Work- shop in 2003, CEN has published a dozen of Consor- tium Workshop Agreements (CWAs), in particular to 1.5 New Business Partners identify generic ICT skills profiles (CWA 14925:2004) and define guidelines for ICT curriculum develop- Current State of Standards ment (CWA 15005.2004) for the ICT supply indus- try, as well as develop the European e-Competence The increasing need for companies to meet mass Framework (CEN 15893:2008), which is a reference customisation and personalisation of integrated framework of 36 ICT competences. In 2009, the product and services requires the development of CWA 16053:2009 developed reference standards to multi-sector industrial partnerships that goes be- ensure interoperability of European ICT career and yond traditional value chains. There are no particu- e-skills services. More recently, the CWA 16367:2011 lar standards focusing on business interactions, but has provided guidelines to adapt the European standards in general help increasing trust between e-Competence Framework to the needs of SMEs. trading partners, build network effects and reduce transaction costs between them. Since the creation of the Learning Technologies Work- shop in 1999, CEN has also been involved in the devel- The need to integrate more environmental, social opment of European e-learning standards, with a focus and ethical issues into business models also push- on quality approaches, case studies and implementa- es for new partnerships, in particular NGOs. In the tion guidelines. In 2007, the CEN Technical Committee field of Corporate Social Responsibility, the ISO 353 was created to work on standards in the field of 26000 management standard was published in ICT related to learning, education and training. 2010 following five years of negotiations between representatives from industry, government, NGOs, Another issue is the emergence of new collaborative consumer groups and labour organisations around working patterns (e.g. through open source software the world. solutions) and more flexible working arrangements (e.g. homework, work during weekends, etc.), which

11 COM(2007) 496, ‘E-Skills in the 21st Century’; COM(2010) 245, ‘A Digital 10 COM(2011) 571 final, ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’ Agenda for Europe’; COM(2010) 682, ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’

24 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? brings new challenges in the management of organ- A stronger interaction is also required with the stake- isations and leads to a changing balance of power be- holders involved in setting the coordination mecha- tween employees and employers. Standards for these nisms of labour markets. evolving conditions in labour markets have not yet been developed, most probably because companies have no short-term interests in promoting such initiatives. 1.7 Customer Involvement

In order to keep older and disabled people in the pool of Current State of Standards the active workforce, standards are required to ensure that workplaces in particular – but also all the products, With consumer requirements becoming increasingly services and infrastructures that are used daily in an important, companies have started to involve users active life – are adapted in terms of accessibility, safe- in the earliest stages of their innovation processes to ty, and usability. Standardisation activities focusing on improve their products and services and foster their disabled and elderly people have been on-going since later acceptance, including in relation to ethical and 1999, when the EC issued the M/273 mandate that re- social issues. As for governments, they have redirect- quired European Standards to integrate requirements ed their innovation policies from technology-push to- for disabled and elderly people in terms of access to ICT wards more demand-driven needs. products and services, and the M/283 mandate, which is a guidance document that explains how to address The European Standardisation System has already ac- the safety and usability of products by people with spe- knowledged the increased importance of consumers cial needs. These mandates resulted in several publica- and citizens in the creation of standards, with several tions by the ESOs related to accessibility, which is now a organisations representing their interest within the core value of the ESS and its standards. The interests of formal standardisation processes. At the European disabled workers have also been taken into account at level, ANEC defends the consumer interests in the the international level, such as in the general series of creation of European standards, in particular when Corporate Social Responsibility standards (ISO 26000), they are developed to support the implementation as well as in various ergonomics standards (e.g. the ISO of European regulation (harmonised standards) and 24500 series) and more specific standards (e.g. lifts, specific public policies related to the environment (e.g. wheelchairs, etc.). involvement of ANEC in Ecodesign, Ecolabel, Energy label, environmental footprint, etc.), health, safety and accessibility, the Information Society, etc. The inter- Identified Gaps for Standards ests of the consumer/user/citizen are also represented by more sector-oriented groups such as the European The need for standards related to skills have been Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisa- highlighted at many occasions during this study by tion (ECOS) in the environmental field. participants as a key enabler to promote the Indus- trial Landscape Vision 2025. The standardisation Understanding the behaviours of consumers is also activities already launched by the ESOs in the field crucial both for businesses and for policy-mak- of ICT skills should be extended to other technolo- ers. However, few standards are integrating a be- gies and industries to foster a stronger alignment havioural component. For example, even though the between academics and business, especially in sci- ISO 14000 series of environmental standards has entific and technical fields but not only. been developed largely in response to consumer expectations, there are no environmental standards As for standards related to more flexible labour mar- focusing on the consumer behaviour related to the kets, the responsibility of their development belongs use of natural resources. primarily to the unions and employers’ organisations, and/or to the governmental institutions responsible for labour market regulations. Identified Gaps for Standards

Finally, despite substantial efforts and advances, the The changing consumer requirements and be- full integration of the needs and preferences of elder- haviours have only been taken recently into account ly and disabled people into standardisation work is far in standardisation processes. The existing stock of from being achieved, and a focus on their accessibility standards needs to be reviewed – or new standards to all working environments is particularly required to should be created – to better include these custom- promote the Industrial Landscape Vision 2025. er-related considerations, in particular consumer re- quirements towards “softer” product characteristics, like environmental and social sustainability. For the Possible Impacts on the European Standardi- time being, “social aspects” of products and produc- sation System tion are only partly covered by the ISO 26000 series of Social Responsibility standards. The challenge lies The main challenge for the European Standardisa- mainly on the higher degree of volatility in customer tion System remains to establish its position in the behaviours and the increased speed of technological field of skills, learning and training in relation to the development. already existing institutions.

25 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Besides, the expansion of the range of business 2. Infrastructure models – from just selling products to offering com- prehensive services – is also requiring completely 2.1 Smart & Interoperable new standards that are much more complicated to Physical Infrastructure define because those business models require closer integration with the customers but also many more Current State of Standards stakeholders within the value chain who should be involved in the standardisation process. Physical infrastructure comprises energy, transport and water infrastructure. The main challenge con- Finally, standards are needed for the technologies sists in making these infrastructures smarter and and processes which enable a stronger involvement more integrated across Europe. of customers in the development of innovative prod- ucts and services. The European energy infrastructure is currently dominated by the need to develop and implement smart grids, which will integrate in a cost-efficient Possible Impacts on the European Standardi- manner the behaviours and actions of all connect- sation System ed users – producers and consumers – to enhance overall economic and environmental sustainability The effective representation of consumers and cit- of the energy infrastructure. Various standardisation izens in standardisation processes is still not com- activities already exist to develop adequate related pletely accomplished in most standardisation pro- standards. The European Commission (EC) issued the cesses in the Member States, which leads eventually Standardisation Mandate M/490 in March 2011 to to an underrepresentation at the European level. It is European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) to even a greater challenge at the international level, support European Smart Grid Deployment. Standard- especially in emerging countries where representa- isation has indeed a key role for smart grids due to tives of consumers and citizens are non-existent. their complexity and to the involvement of many dif- ferent sectors along the value chain. As a response, The integration of “soft” product characteristics, the three ESOs established in July 2011, together such as sustainability issues, into standards is much with relevant stakeholders, the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI more difficult than technical specifications. They are Joint Working Group (JWG) on Standards for Smart indeed more difficult to understand and agree on, Grids to better coordinate their work and perform and the creation of related standards requires the continuous standard enhancement and development involvement and approval of more interest groups. in this field. This JWG produced a strategic report More systematic and effective instruments have to which outlines the standardisation requirements for be developed to integrate the new preferences and implementing the European vision of smart grids, in behavioural patterns of consumers effectively in the line with the Smart Grids Task Force of the European standardisation process. Commission. The standardisation work builds on al- ready existing material delivered through other man- The rise of individualism has also implications on the dates such as M/441 on smart metering. demand and consumption patterns leading to more personalisation and customisation of products and The main challenge for the European transport infra- services, which is obviously challenging standardised structure – both passenger and freight – is to move products and services, and the very purpose of stan- towards stronger intermodality and interoperability dardisation. so as to ensure overall transport efficiency, as re- flected in the EU Transport White Paper12. For the time being, the various modes (air, rail, road, water) are only partly connected and their further integra- tion is still suffering from national idiosyncrasies. Various activities have started to develop harmon- ised standards in Europe, in particular for railways, following the Mandates M/483 on Interoperability of the Rail System and M/486 on Urban Rail issued by the EC. However, there are still severe national frictions in this field. Furthermore, the interfaces be- tween transport systems are recognised but not yet all sufficiently organised in an efficient way.

As for the water infrastructure, international stan- dards for sustainable water management (e.g. piping and valves, treated wastewater reuse for irrigation, water quality, water footprint, etc.) have been devel-

12 COM(2011) 144 final, White Paper, ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’, 2011

26 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? oped since several years and constitute an almost Besides, the stronger supranational involvement of complete offering to water issues. governments needed to ensure better integration of transport infrastructure, and the mix between public stakeholders, which often represent specific nation- Identified Gaps for Standards al interests, and private companies – with their own standardisation initiatives – may also result in stron- In the field of smart grids, a more comprehensive ger tensions in the governance of the process, both and integrated approach is needed to coordinate the at the EU level and between the EU and the rest of various standardisation activities existing at the na- the world. tional, European and international level, to integrate and exploit the potential of all the relevant technol- Finally, the deficit in the implementation of inter- ogies, as well as to engage all stakeholders, such as national standards related to water management the service providers – who develop new business highlights the new role that standards could play for models – and professional and private customers. knowledge and technology transfer. There is a strong need to harmonise the standards of the often nationally dominated transport systems, and to ensure closer coordination with internation- 2.2 ICT Infrastructure al standardisation activities, especially for freight transport in response to increasingly globalised and Current State of Standards fragmented supply chains. A very large variety of stakeholders also need to be involved in the stan- Standardisation in the field of Information and Com- dardisation process, from multinational companies munication Technologies (ICT) is a fundamental con- to small and local-oriented companies, including dition of an efficient ICT infrastructure, which has state-owned institutions (e.g. in the railroad or air become the backbone of the global economy and traffic system) and service providers. the new Information Society. The main challenge for the ICT infrastructure lies in the exponential amount The move towards electromobility requires the in- of data generated, stored and analysed due to the teroperability (e.g. charging infrastructure) and inter- pervasive role of modern information and commu- connectivity (e.g. data exchange supplier/consumer) nication technologies (e.g. smart mobile communi- between smart grids and electric vehicles. Standards cations, the Internet, the Internet of things, etc.). An are needed to ensure a certain level of harmonisa- almost unlimited bandwidth is now required, as well tion (i.e. compatibility) and enhance the quality, per- as a more secure and efficient management, both in formance and safety of these operations. terms of data flows and ICT-related environmental impact (c.f. overall energy efficiency, related green- On water infrastructure, the challenge remains house gas emissions, etc.). Besides, ICT infrastruc- mainly on the implementation of existing inter- tures are not yet fully interoperable, both among national standards, in particular in countries with themselves and with physical infrastructures (e.g. weaker water regulatory institutions and lower tech- smart grids). nological capabilities. There is also some on-going development in water technologies which needs to Standardisation’s role in addressing these challeng- be addressed by standardisation work. es is now well acknowledged, and ICT standardisa- tion has indeed a long tradition, which is reflected Generally speaking, more standards are needed to in the current international and European standard- reduce the risk and vulnerabilities of increasingly isation systems. Besides the specialised and formal complex technical infrastructure and ensure their standardisation organisations, like the International overall reliability and security. It is in particular the Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the International case in the context of climate change, with a need Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) at the internation- to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure. al level, and ETSI at the European level, a series of These kinds of standards are indeed only starting to standardisation consortia has emerged, especially be developed. in the context of the development of the Internet, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Organi- Possible Impacts on the European Standardi- zation for the Advancement of Structured Informa- sation System tion Standards (OASIS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Standards Association (IEEE- Those identified gaps in terms of coordination, inte- SA), etc. gration of technologies, and involvement of hetero- geneous stakeholders have serious impacts on the Much of the standardisation activity related to ICT European Standardisation System (ESS) since there infrastructure is carried out by these industry con- is a clear trade-off between the very time-consum- sortia13, even though the ESOs, and in particular ETSI, ing efforts required to address those gaps and the have on-going standardisation activities on most of overarching need to speed up the standardisation process as an answer to shorter innovation cycles 13 CEN-CENELEC listed 234 ICT Standards Consortia in its Comprehensive List of Consortia, 17th Edition. and rapid technological developments. Cf. www.cen.eu/cen/sectors/sectors/isss/consortia/pages/default.aspx#

27 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

the above-mentioned issues, sometimes in collabo- than the needs for coordination at the internation- ration with these informal standardisation organisa- al level are increasingly important due to the global tions (e.g. ETSI and IEEE-SA’s long-standing cooper- dimension of the ICT infrastructure, the catching up ation). For example, ETSI is working to improve the of several emerging countries (e.g. China), the het- energy efficiency of ICT equipment in response to erogeneity and the dynamism of the standardisation EC Mandate 462, with deliverables on measurement landscape in that field, and the broadening variety of methods, control and monitoring systems, Key Per- technologies involved. formance Indicators (KPIs) on energy efficiency, best practices, etc. Another example is the collaboration Interoperability and in particular cross-border in- is the on-going collaboration between ETSI and ITU-T teroperability between infrastructures are crucial to to produce a common methodology for assessing allow widespread use of ICT in many sectors, and the environmental impact of ICT. Furthermore, under standardisation has a key role to play in Europe – the umbrella of the ICT Standards Board (ICTSB), the and beyond – to reach that objective. three ESOS are coordinating specification activities in the field of ICT with the participation of specification Existing standardisation activities on greening the providers14. Activities deal notably with Smart House, ICT infrastructure need to be further extended. Network & Information Society, Electronic Signature, Design for All, or Intelligent Transport Systems. Possible Impacts on the European Standardisation System The ESOs are already quite involved in standardi- sation in the field of Intelligent Transport Systems The European Standardisation System (ESS) is par- (ITS), with dedicated technical committees in CEN ticularly challenged because of its less prominent (CEN/TC 278) and ETSI (ETSI/TC ITS). The two ESOs role in the field of ICT standardisation compared to are ensuring strategic coordination through the ITS other sectors. Many heterogeneous players with dif- Coordination Group (ITS-CG), as well as alignment ferent capacities and interests are involved world- of working groups with the ISO/TC 204 Technical wide. The ESS needs to strongly interact with infor- Committee on ITS at the international level. ITS has mal standardisation organisations as well as with indeed become a focus of the European Commis- new partner countries so as to promote and better sion with in particular the issuance of a mandate on influence international standardisation activities. Co-operative Systems (M/453) in 2009, as well as an earlier mandate on Electronic Fee Collection (M/338) The challenge in developing common international in 2003. Besides, a 2010-2013 ICT standardisation standards is particularly tough when related to the work programme, including the field of Intelligent public dimension of the ICT infrastructure, e.g. se- Transport, has been established to promote the use curity and privacy issues, because of different – and of standards as a mean to increase interoperability sometimes conflicting – visions among actors. between services and applications. Generally speaking, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI need to Greening the ICT infrastructure is an issue also cov- work even more closely with each other, using for ered by ESOs. The EC issued in 2010 the M/462 example the same kind of framework used in the mandate in the field of ICT to enable efficient energy Joint Working Group on Standards for Smart Grids, in use in fixed and mobile information and communi- order to address properly the overall objective of in- cation networks. ETSI, in collaboration with CEN and tegration and interoperability between physical and consortia, is dealing with architectural aspects of ICT infrastructures, systems, applications, products, broadband deployment and eco-environmental is- and services in a wide range of sectors. sues, like measurement methods, definition of pow- er consumption targets, thermal management and powering architecture and supervision. 2.3 Knowledge Infrastructure

Current State of Standards Identified Gaps for Standards As the basis of education, research and innovation, The main challenges for standardisation consist in knowledge is probably the key asset for the European helping making ICT infrastructures more efficient, economy. An efficient European knowledge infrastruc- fully interoperable, and safe and secure in order ture – based upon enhanced physical and digital facil- to get the full economic and social benefits of ICT- ities, systems, environments, methodologies and lan- based services and applications. These needs are guages – is needed to promote full accessibility and taken into consideration by an increasing number of sharing of data, information and knowledge across standardisation organisations but for the time be- Europe and beyond, as well as across generations. ing, and despite some efforts to enhance coordina- tion, their activities are still often competing or even However, specific standardisation activities are conflicting. This situation is all the more problematic mainly de facto or consortia-based, whereas formal standardisation activities from the ESS are either not existing or in embryonic stages, such as the re- 14 For example, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Digital Europe, Open Mobile Alliance, the W3C, etc. cent Cloud Standards Co-ordination (CSC), launched

28 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? in December 2012 by ETSI in response to a request 2.4 Financial Infrastructure from the European Commission, that will “identify a detailed map of the standards required in areas such Current State of Standards as security, interoperability, data portability and re- versibility”. In response to EC Mandate 473, ETSI is Over the last few years, the financial crises have also starting to focus on eInclusion to “ensure that clearly showed the importance of a robust financial developments in technology are accessible to all in our infrastructure to promote and maintain an efficient society, including the elderly, the young and those with European production and consumption system. disabilities” and the three ESOs are cooperating in the field of eAccessibility to address the EC Mandate For the time being, standardisation activities in that 376 on the accessibility requirements for the public field have been modest, since the financial infrastruc- procurement of ICT products and services. ture is mainly coordinated through regulations or by very specific type of standards, e.g. accounting and fi- nancial reporting standards. There are however some Identified Gaps for Standards activities in the field of financial services, and ESOs and regulators are already investigating an expansion With an increasing volume of data available for of dedicated activities, such as the identification of se- knowledge generation and new technological devel- curities, the classification of financial instruments, and opments, continuous efforts in standardisation will terminology for financial instruments. be needed to ensure full digital accessibility to the knowledge infrastructure to all European citizens. A series of ownership and privacy questions will chal- Identified Gaps for Standards lenge this objective and will need to be addressed by ESOs in coordination with standardisation industrial The current status of standards related to the finan- fora and consortia. ESOs should push for a standard- cial infrastructure reflects their limited relevance isation approach to cloud computing that allows full for formal standardisation activities. The influence interoperability, portability and privacy of files ex- of regulatory institutions and the strong position of changed among clouds. other types of standardisation bodies give the ESOs only a small niche for more basic activities, e.g. on Furthermore, standards should aim more strongly classifications and terminology. at facilitating collaboration among educational and research institutions, e.g. through the development However, with today’s challenges of re-establish- of digital research repositories, research information ing the trust in the financial system and improving systems and data mining techniques, as well as the the efficiency of the financial flows and the alloca- use of common metadata, statistics and identifiers. tion of funds, there is undoubtedly a potential role Another challenge for standardisation is to foster the for standards related to measurement, quality and emergence of a sustainable knowledge infrastruc- traceability. ture, which will ensure the access to past and current knowledge for future generations. Standards are in particularly needed for the development of secure, Possible Impacts on the European Standardi- long-term and robust digital storage usable by all sation System economic stakeholders. The standardisation system has investigated the opportunity to contribute through standards to the Possible Impacts on the European efficiency and stability of the financial infrastruc- Standardisation System ture. However, the further expansion of standardi- sation activities in that field has not been particu- Since the standardisation activities are often outside larly welcome by existing institutions yet. Only an the traditional standardisation system, there is no increased demand from the clients of the financial alternative for ESOs but to increase coordination ef- system would authorise the launch of new stan- forts towards international fora and consortia so as dardisation activities. to promote stronger integration of standardisation activities related to the knowledge infrastructure.

These efforts will be all the more important than stakeholders are quite heterogeneous in that field, with data producers, academic research libraries and archival institutions, service providers offering stor- age and analysis, the potential users of the new in- sights, as well as the national regulatory authorities and their conflicting data protection preferences, not to forget the future generations of users, which in- terests have to be considered in a way or another in standardisation processes.

29 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

3. Materials cently, standards for the recycling of RFID tags (ISO 17365) or nanotechnology particles (ISO/TR 13121) 3.1 Materials & Reusable Parts or even software (ISO/IEC 12207) have been pub- For Sustainability lished. In parallel, numerous standards on recycling machines have been produced and are currently Current State of Standards under development (prEN ISO 20500). ISO 15926 standardises the lifecycle activities and processes of The increasing global population and its growing con- production facilities. Its aim is to provide data inte- sumption raise the demand for raw materials, which gration for these activities and processes. Although leads to higher prices and a further exploration of it focuses in the oil and petrochemical industry, its extraction opportunities often accompanied by envi- concepts are generic and may be extended to cover ronmental problems. Besides, the consideration of the other domains. finite stock of natural resources on Earth accentuates the pressure to recycle the available materials and to At the European level, the CEN/TC 261 on ‘Pack- develop alternative eco-friendly materials. It leads to aging’ issued a report on material recycling that a new approach where frontiers between materials, “describes substances or materials which cause parts and products are blurring, with the overall ob- problems or inhibit the recycling process, or which jective to close the material loop. have a negative influence on the quality of recycled materials, and for which it is considered that tech- Formal standardisation activities related to materi- nological solutions will not be developed in the near als are obviously numerous, since materials are the future”. The CEN/TC 292 activities on ‘Characteri- main traditional input of the production and consump- sation of Waste’ also better prepares the re-use tion system. As an example, the Work Programme of of waste as secondary raw materials. Standards CEN related to materials covers all kinds of metallic on paper recycling (EN 643), issued more than ten (e.g. aluminium, copper, zinc, tin, lead, powder, etc.) years ago, are currently under revision. Recycling and non-metallic (e.g. paper, ceramics, textile, plas- standards have also been released for other ma- tics, etc.) materials, and the standardisation work terials, such as aluminium (EN 15330). Besides, deals with classification, terminology, sampling, test the European Commission has recently issued the methods, equipment, technologies, etc. However, the M/518 Mandate on Waste Electrical and Electronic above-mentioned challenges are not fully covered by Equipment (WEEE) to foster the implementation of these traditional standardisation activities. the Directive on WEEE revised in 2012. The ESOs are requested to develop standards for the treat- Indeed, there are for example a few but not many ment of WEEE, which includes recovery, recycling standards related to the exploitation and harvesting and preparing for re-use. of raw materials. When standardisation activities ex- ist, they have been initiated by other private or public Standardisation activities are already on-going international organisations, such as the International in the field of bio-based products, which refer to Accounting Standards Boards (IASB), which has de- products made from renewable biological raw veloped an International Financing Reporting Stan- materials such as plants and trees. The European dard for extractive industries, or the United Nations Commission stressed the importance of standards Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which for promoting bio-based products in its Commu- has developed the UN Framework Classification for nication on a ‘Bioeconomy for Europe’15 and on its Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2012 Industrial Policy Communication Update16, (UNFC 2009) to get a more reliable and consistent where bio-based product markets are one of the estimate of global quantities of fossil energy. six priority lines. The EC issued a series of related mandates17 to the ESOs, and CEN is consequently In contrast, there are already various standards for developing general horizontal standards as well as recycling processes and product characteristics to specific standards in the areas of bio-lubricants, facilitate recycling and re-use. For instance, the ISO bio-polymers, bio-surfactants and bio-solvents. 15270 provides guidance for the development of Standardisation is expected to aggregate initial standards and specifications covering plastics waste demand and to increase market transparency by recovery, including recycling, and the ISO 30000 se- providing common reference methods and re- ries are a set of standards for ship recycling. In the quirements in order to verify claims about these context of promoting environmentally safe product products (e.g. bio-degradability, bio-based con- recycling or disposal, the IEC Guide 113 provides tent, recyclability, sustainability). guidelines assisting companies which have to devel- op materials declaration questionnaires for products. The ISO 14000 family of environmental manage- 15 COM(2012) 60, ‘Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for ment standards include a focus on life-cycle assess- Europe’ ment (LCA), which helps companies identifying and 16 COM(2012) 582, ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economy evaluating the environmental aspects of products Recovery’ 17 M/429 for the elaboration of a standardisation programme for bio-based and services from the “cradle to the grave” (ISO products; M/430 on bio-polymers and bio-lubricants; M/491 on bio- 14040 and following). ISO 14051 provides a gener- solvents and bio-surfactants; M/492 for the development of horizontal standards for bio-based products. al framework for material flow accounting. Very re-

30 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Identified Gaps for Standards increasingly being developed, and foster advanced manufacturing processes, such as additive manu- Standards are needed to complete the closure of the facturing. The European Standardisation System has material loop and foster a sustainable management reacted to these new developments, although with of natural resources worldwide. First, an increased some delay. number of scarcer materials need to be covered by recycling standards. Critical raw materials, including Nanomaterials are raising considerable social con- noble metals and rare earth elements should be a cerns, as the interactions of nanoparticles of a sub- priority. Besides, there is not yet a complete series stance with our bodies and the environment are not of recycling standards that have an international fully understood yet. On the other hand, nanotech- consensus. But more importantly, closing the ma- nologies have also a huge potential for innovation terial loop requires a broader and more integrated and economic development. Standardisation has approach than just recycling. Standards are also consequently a key role to play in balancing social required to foster the reuse, recovery and reman- expectations for consumer protection and risk man- ufacturing of materials, parts and products in the agement of technological development, so as to re- most-efficient way. This requires in particular the inforce eventually consumers’ confidence when na- gathering, processing and exchange of information no-based products are reaching the market. The CEN/ throughout the product life, from the extraction of TC 352 is engaged in standardisation in the field of materials to their reuse or disposal. Existing Product nanotechnologies since 2006, working closely with Lifecycle Management (PLM) standards are able to ISO/TC 229 and other European and international trace parts of the lifecycle, but not all the details of bodies (in particular the OECD) to avoid redundancy it, which is now possible through the integration of of standardisation activities. The 2010 EC Mandate real-time sensor data and their sharing to all rele- M/461 has identified standardisation as a building vant stakeholders. Data and communication stan- block of the “safe, integrated, and responsible” ap- dards defining the format and content for data ex- proach recommended in the European Strategy for change are needed. Nanotechnologies18 and emphasised the need to de- liver standards in priority for the “characterisation of As for the exploitation and extracting of raw mate- and exposure from nanomaterials”. rials, the existing standards could be effectively and efficiently transferred in the short-term to those coun- The ISO/TC 261 was established in 2011 to ad- tries with large and even expandable stock of raw dress standardisation issues in the field of additive materials. A good example is the already mentioned manufacturing with one of the four working groups collaboration with Brazil in the area of biofuels. dedicated to ‘methods, processes and materials’, and dealing with material definition, material certifica- tion and specific standards to combine technology Possible Impacts on the European with materials. The work is done in close cooper- Standardisation System ation with the ASTM F 42 International Technical Committee on Additive Manufacturing Technologies Common standardisation activities with developing formed in 2009. countries could be used as a channel of technolo- gy and knowledge transfer in the field of material International standardisation activities have also detection, exploitation and processing leading to been launched recently in the field of biomimetic more efficient international standards that include materials under the ISO/TC 266 technical committee the technological know-how of European industries, to contribute to the overall acceptance of biomimet- and stress the environmental considerations of the ic products. It will start on the basis of guidelines European society. already developed by the Association of German Engineers (VDI) to create international standards fo- However, countries like Brazil and China, which are cusing on terminology, advanced materials and bio- becoming stronger partners in international stan- mimetic structure optimisation. dardisation, are also following their own interests. Consequently, the efforts of European stakeholders in international standardisation have to be strength- Identified Gaps for Standards ened in order to response to the increasing interna- tional competition and defend a circular and sustain- The need for standards on nanomaterials has been able approach to the use of materials worldwide. well acknowledged by standardisation organisations. However, new developments, like bionanotechnolo- gy or combination of nanotechnologies with ICT, are 3.2 Advanced Materials For missing and are challenged by the current structures Performance of the standardisation system, which do not foster the integration of such converging technologies (e.g. Current State of Standards split between ISO and ITU, or CEN and ETSI, as well

In addition to raw materials, new advanced materi- 18 COM(2004) 338 final, ‘Towards an European Strategy for Nanotechnology’; COM(2005) 243 final, ‘Nanosciences & Nanotechnologies Action Plan for als such as nanomaterials and smart materials are Europe 2005-2009’

31 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

as at the level of technical committees). Besides, The increased harvesting of personal data from con- standards in the field of nanomaterials should go sumers will lead to further concerns for data pro- beyond technical requirements and embed appro- tection and the right to privacy, which are already priate knowledge and user-friendly information for acknowledged by European public authorities. The the consumers regarding safety and environmental European Commission is currently working on a Gen- issues. Efforts should be made on communication eral Data Protection Regulation to unify data protec- around these issues to foster acceptance of these tion within the European Union with stronger global new materials. considerations as well as inclusion of recent techno- logical developments, such as social networks and As for additive manufacturing technologies, materi- cloud computing. als are necessarily used in a very different way than for subtractive manufacturing, which was the im- Data protection standards have already been devel- plicit reference for material specifications until now. oped, such as the ISO 27001 standard and its data Consequently, the specifications of materials that protection controls within an Information Security can be used for additive manufacturing, e.g. ceram- Information System, and the BSI specification for a ics, polymers, metallic powder, etc., need to be re- Personal Information Management System19, which viewed to include the material properties in response offers guidance on how to implement a framework to additive manufacturing technologies. to effectively manage personal information and al- lows companies to maintain and improve compli- A vast number of advanced materials (e.g. graphene) ance with regulations. and smart materials (e.g. self-healing materials, self-assembling materials, materials acting as A crucial data-related issue for manufacturing is the sensors by design) are being developed, and even Internet of Things (IoT), which can be defined as a though it is not yet the right timing for standardi- “dynamic global network infrastructure with self-con- sation, the ESOs should already seek close and con- figuring capabilities based on standard and interop- tinuous interaction with researchers in these fields. erable communication protocols where physical and virtual “things” have identities, physical attributes, and virtual personalities, use intelligent interfaces, and are Possible Impacts on the European seamlessly integrated into the information network”20. Standardisation System Standardisation of these protocols is one of the pri- ority domains of the Annual European Standardisa- The challenge for the standardisation system is to tion Work Programme 2012, which is in line with the increase its absorptive capacity for complex con- 2009 EC Communication on the Internet of Things21 verging technologies, which components are cur- where IoT standardisation was considered to “play an rently dealt with in different standardisation bodies. important role in the uptake of the IoT”. Furthermore, the development in nanotechnology, which is characterised by a strong involvement of In Europe, “Connecting Things” is now a key focus the OECD, shows the increasing competition of nu- for ETSI, which is actively working on end-to-end merous organisations to set standards in promising Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications. ETSI new fields of technology, but also the threat of a has indeed joined forces with six other key ICT stan- fragmentation of standardisation activities. Conse- dards-setting organisations22 as a first step towards quently, stronger coordination is needed between all a global initiative for M2M standardisation, called standardisation organisations involved. the oneM2M Partnership Project, which aims at de- veloping technical specifications for “a common M2M To foster innovation in the field of additive manufac- Service Layer that can be readily embedded within turing, the European Standardisation System should various hardware and software, and relied upon to in particular contribute to and promote the develop- connect the myriad of devices in the field with M2M ment of open databases for material characterisation. application servers worldwide”23. Recently, ETSI has also completed the ‘Foundation Standards Pack- age for M2M Services’, comprising three Technical Specifications addressing requirements, functional 4. Knowledge Management architecture and interface descriptions. Within CEN,

4.1 Data Capture 19 BS 10012:2009, ‘Data Protection. Specification for a Personal Information Management System’

Current State of Standards 20 Definition proposed by the European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things Thanks to recent ICT technological development, man- 21 COM(2009) 278 final, ‘Internet of Things – An Action Plan for Europe’ ufacturing firms will seek to capture an increasing 22 This global initiative has currently gathered representatives from the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) and the amount of data from all kinds of internal and external Telecommunication Technology Committee (TTC) of Japan; the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) and the Telecommunications sources, and make it available for processing, visual- Industry Association (TIA) of the USA; the China Communications isation, analysis, and transformation into knowledge, Standards Association (CCSA); the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI); and the Telecommunications Technology in particular in order to better understand and respond Association (TTA) of South Korea.

to consumer behaviours and requirements. 23 www.onem2m.org

32 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? the CEN/TC 225 technical committee on ‘Automat- In 2001, the British Standards Institute (BSI) issued ic Identification and Data Capture Technologies’ will the ‘PAS 2001 – Knowledge Management: A Guide act as a focal point for IoT issues, even though the to Good Practice’, which examines knowledge man- focus is comparably narrow on auto-identification agement challenges, approaches and benefits with related issues (mainly RFID and bar codes). At the examples of good practice from industry, commerce international level, ITU has launched the ‘Internet of and academia. Other guides completed the PAS 2001, Things Global Standards Initiative’ (IoT-GSI), and has e.g. on ‘Skills for Knowledge Working’ and ‘Measure- also formed a ‘Focus Group on Machine-to-Machine ments in Knowledge Management’. Following the Service Layer’, which deals more with coordination British initiative, CEN published in 2004 a ‘Europe- activities than actual standards development. an Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Manage- ment’ in five volumes as a CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA). The guide includes a Knowledge Management Identified Gaps for Standards Framework and addresses issues on the organisa- tional culture needed for introducing knowledge With Big Data, further standards will be needed to management, on the specific requirements for im- ensure data quality and improve data sharing and plementations of small and medium-sized enterpris- comparability. Companies will also need to adopt ef- es, as well as measurement and terminology issues. ficient internal data cleansing and archiving process- Knowledge management guides were produced by es to avoid redundancy and overload of information, other standards-setting organisations worldwide, which could be subject to standardisation. such as Standards Australia who issued in 2005 a guide with an implementation framework flexible Robust international standards on data protection enough to be adapted to individual, organisational are urgently needed to answer the serious concerns or community level. of users, citizens and public authorities related to their privacy and the security of their communica- tion. This need will only been more pressing with the Identified Gaps for Standards Internet of Things. The increasing availability of data, the involvement The promising development of quantum computing, of more and more actors in knowledge generation, and the associated shift from (binary) bits to qubits, distribution and usage, as well as the continuous will require completely new data standards, both in progress in technologies for processing, storing and terms of format and content. transferring this knowledge will create a demand for knowledge management, which should be more strongly addressed by standardisation. Possible Impacts on the European Standardisation System Furthermore, the increasing mobility of skilled work- ers is not only challenging human resource manage- Similarly to the ICT infrastructure, informal stan- ment, which is now covered by the recent ISO/TC 260 dardisation bodies generate most standards related Technical Committee, but also knowledge manage- to data capture and associated communication pro- ment. As the mobility is global, cultural disparities tocols. Therefore, the ESOs need to ensure constant should be taken implicitly into account in standardi- coordination with these private initiatives. sation processes.

Regarding the Internet of Things, the main challenge is to ensure consistency among specific standards on Possible Impacts on the European RFID, M2M, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN), Near Standardisation System Field Communication (NFC), etc., to foster coordination among the existing standardisation initiatives, as well Standardisation in the field of knowledge manage- as to include security and privacy considerations. ment requires a comprehensive and integrative ap- proach where all stakeholders of the value chain, and all departments within companies (R&D, Human 4.2 Knowledge Generation Resources, Marketing, etc.), need to be involved. Therefore, the current fragmented structure and Current State of Standards standards-setting processes of the European Stan- dardisation System are particularly challenged if the The highly diversified nature of knowledge, the spe- work should go beyond the elaboration of guides and cific needs of companies and its increasing com- also include the creation of standards. petitive value have not led to many standardisation activities in that field. However, some aspects re- lated to knowledge management are more appro- priate for standardisation, and several guides have already been published by ESOs and their national counterparts.

33 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

4.3 Intellectual Property marketing departments, and across companies, e.g. Management patent attorneys, IP services, etc.

Current State of Standards Due to the global dimension of IP infringement is- sues, an international solution is required, which In line with the central role of knowledge, intellectu- has to balance heterogeneous regional approach to al property has become more and more important IP. ESOs need to assure that the European interests for manufacturing companies. However, the global- are reflected. isation of markets, the distribution of goods via the Internet and the related counterfeiting issues are Besides, there is still a need to clarify the relation- challenging companies’ intellectual property. Fur- ship between standardisation and IPRs, and in par- thermore, new open forms of collaboration in the ticular to stress the possible misuse of IPRs in the innovation process are making an appropriate attri- standardisation process that goes against innovation bution of rights much more difficult to realise. and fair competition. Indeed, strategic behaviours are occurring in standard-setting organisations (e.g. There are no explicit international standards on in- leading to patent hold-up, patent ambush and troll- tellectual property, although the ISO 9000 series is ing, royalty stacking, etc.), and collusions happen in mentioning it. Attempts to establish standards to as- informal SSOs. This trend was already stressed in sess the value of patents failed at the international the Innovation Union Communication: “standard set- level. Currently, some European activities have start- ting processes require clear IPR rules to avoid situa- ed, but are not yet completed. tions where a company can gain unfair market power by incorporating proprietary IPRs in a standard”. Those In fact, the main issue related to intellectual property behaviours can be particularly detrimental to SMEs relates to the standard-setting process itself. Indeed, in their access to markets. As for the implementation the aim of defining the best possible standard in a of FRAND terms, it is still difficult to identify what is particular field often leads to include in that stan- “fair and reasonable”. ESOs need to continue their dard the best available technology which is generally efforts in solving these issues. proprietary and protected by one or more patents. CEN and CENELEC have developed an intellectual property rights (IPR) policy under the provision of the CEN-CENELEC Guide 8 “Standardisation and in- 5. Services tellectual property rights”, which is in line with ISO and IEC and which “encourages early disclosure and 5.1 Services For Customers identification of patents that may relate to standards under development” and requires patent-owners to li- Current State of Standards cense their essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) to other standard As a response to increasing competition from low- users. Following the Communication COM(2008) cost producers of physical goods around the globe as 133 ‘Towards an increased contribution from stan- well as to changing consumer requirements, compa- dardisation to innovation’, a study on the ‘Interplay nies offer – and will increasingly offer – products ac- between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights’ companied by value-added services to escape com- was commissioned by the European Commission and petitive pressure, and increase turnover and profits. covered broadly the issue. Even though services contribute to almost 70 % of EU GDP, European standardisation in the field of Identified Gaps for Standards services has been slow. Indeed, European service standards represent less than 10 % of all standards. There are clearly gaps in IP-related standards, in However, the need to develop service standards is particular to help SMEs improving the management now well acknowledged at the European level, in of IP (mainly patents, copyrights, trademarks) within particular to promote stronger integration of the Sin- their businesses, enhancing IP creation and reinforc- gle Market for Services. The Directive 2006/123/EC ing IP protection. clearly stressed the need to develop “voluntary Euro- pean standards with the aim of facilitating compatibili- Besides, strong international IPR standards are par- ty and comparability between services supplied by pro- ticularly needed to tackle IPR infringements in Eu- viders in different Member States, as well as facilitating rope and abroad. information to the recipient and the quality of service provision”, which was recently confirmed by the Reg- ulation on European Standardisation. In March 2013, Possible Impacts on the European the European Commission addressed a mandate Standardisation System (M/517) for the programming and development of horizontal service standards. CEN had already car- Successful approaches to set standards for IP ried out feasibility studies on standardisation in dif- management requires the involvement of various ferent service fields, in response to the previous ser- stakeholders within companies, e.g. R&D, legal and vice-related mandate M/371. The Strategic Advisory

34 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Group on Services (SAGS) was created in November ferent national standards within the internal market”. 2011 and acts as an advisory and coordination body Consequently, coordination needs to be improved in to the CEN Technical Board on political and strategic the production of service standards at the European matters related to service standardisation. level, which would foster stronger integration of ser- vices in the internal market. Key horizontal issues for service standardisation are mainly related to quality and accessibility. The Not all stakeholders are in favour of the horizontal BS 10001 series already deals with customer sat- service standard approach and would prefer nar- isfaction and quality management, and provides rower standards on particular elements of a service, guidelines for codes of conduct for organisation, such as complaints handling, outsourcing of services, complaints handling in organisations and dispute the provision of inclusive services for vulnerable per- resolution external to organisation. sons, etc.

Service companies, especially technology-based services, are significantly engaged in technology 5.2 Services For Production or product standardisation in order to adjust their services to the related technologies. They are reluc- Current State of Standards tant to engage in service standardisation because these services are critical for their competitiveness Manufacturing companies often use support services and profits. to optimise their product assortment along the pro- duction life cycle. Even though there is still the op- tion to build and keep these capacities in-house, it Identified Gaps for Standards might be more efficient to outsource these services, in particular in order to achieve a broad geograph- Despite the above-mentioned constraints, more ic coverage, e.g. for the maintenance and repair of standards are needed in the field of customer ser- products and production sites, with adjustment to vices, customer satisfaction and customer relations. regional preferences. As stressed by ANEC, “customers should be able to easily and reliably recognise quality in service provi- In order to assure high quality of these support ser- sion”, and compare services offered by different pro- vices, companies – and especially large firms – often viders on the basis of standardised criteria. There establish their own internal guidelines or so-called should be strong European standards related to company standards. complaint management and dispute resolution, as well as measuring user satisfaction and also in the Identified Gaps for Standards field of contract management, both to better protect the consumer and to enable companies to better un- Even though standards on services supporting the derstand the customer demand. Standards are also production life cycle are certainly facilitating the needed to ensure accessibility to services for dis- whole production and consumption system, there is abled people. little room for formal standardisation activities. In- deed, on the one hand, the customers of such ser- vices – i.e. large manufacturing companies – are of- Possible Impacts on the European ten setting their private standards, and on the other Standardisation System hand, the service providers derive their competitive- ness by not sharing essential assets of their knowl- To produce quality standards in the field of services, edge or business models. there is obviously a need to better understand con- sumer expectations, which requires a stronger in- Possible Impacts on the European Standardi- volvement of consumers in standards-setting pro- sation System cesses, which leads eventually to the recurrent issue of funding consumer participation. This problem is Since there are insufficient incentives for both ser- not specific to the field of services, but the underrep- vices companies and from large manufacturing resentation of the demand side is indeed aggravated companies to engage in standardisation (and con- in the service sector due to the rather small average sequently to disclose part of their knowledge), ini- company size. tiatives from public authorities might be required to boost formal standardisation in that field. However, National standardisation bodies have been recently the limited impact of the service-related mandates more active in the production of service standards issued by the European Commission in relation to the than ESOs. In the period 2005-2009, 453 national European Service Directive could constitute a dissua- service standards were developed by Member States sive precedent. while only 24 at the European level. As stressed by NORMAPME, “this trend may lead to proliferation of overlapping and heterogeneous national standards that could create new barriers to intra-EU trade in ser- vices by requiring businesses to adopt a range of dif-

35 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

5.3 Services For Business 6. Technologies &

Current State of Standards Production Processes

The further differentiation of the value chain also 6.1 Resource-Efficient & Clean leads to further business services in addition to the Production Processes traditional services. Current State of Standards For the time being, there are very few standards fo- cusing on business services. However, CEN has de- Manufacturing firms will face increased pressure veloped European standards on business services (e.g. from consumers and regulation) – but also find such as maintenance, facility management and greater interest (e.g. reduction of costs) – to use less management consultancy. For example, the Techni- energy and material throughout their production pro- cal Committee CEN/TC 395 ‘Engineering consultan- cesses, as well as to exploit cleaner energy sources cy services’ has recently developed two standards and manufacturing systems. that set out common definitions of terminology to describe engineering services for the construction Energy efficiency issues – even though not focused of buildings, infrastructure and industrial facilities on the industry – have been reflected in various (EN 16310), as well as engineering services for standardisation activities, in particular following manufacturing industrial products and equipment the EC Mandates issued in 2010: M/478 in the field (EN 16311). of greenhouse gas emissions, M/479 in the field of energy audits, and M/480 for a methodology calcu- Furthermore, CEN and CENELEC are currently con- lating the integrated energy performance of build- tributing to the work of the European Commission’s ings and promoting the energy efficiency of build- High Level Group (HLG) on Business Services which ings. Energy performance of buildings had already aims at examining “market gaps, standards, and in- been taken into account in the European Standard novation and international trade issues in industries EN 15459 published in 2007. The CEN and CENELEC such as logistics, facility management, marketing and Sector Forum on Energy Management published in advertising”24. Indeed, the need for quality standards 2010 the TR 16103 technical report defining a glos- that was identified for services for consumers was sary of terms on energy management and energy also stressed for services for businesses: “industrial efficiency. One of the functions of the Sector Forum users of external services are thus confronted with a is to “investigate and evaluate standardisation needs market which is heavily fragmented, non-transparent, in relation to the objectives of European legislation and often lacking well-defined quality standards. Cre- dealing with energy management”. The CEN/CENELEC ating a thriving Single Market in business-related ser- Joint Working Group on ‘Energy Management and vices requires these issues to be urgently addressed.” Related Services” published the European Standards EN 15900:2010, which provides definitions and sets requirements for energy efficiency services, and EN Identified Gaps for Standards 16231:2012 on energy efficiency benchmarking methodology. The JWG on ‘Energy Efficiency and A comprehensive production and consumption sys- Saving Calculations’ published in 2012 a European tem would certainly benefit from standards dedi- Standard EN 16212 that provides methods of cal- cated to new business services, in particular focus- culation of energy consumption, energy efficiencies ing on eco-innovation or energy efficiency. However, and energy savings. At the international level, ISO the emerging character of these service sectors, 50001 supports organisations in all sectors to use characterised by rather small companies and high- energy more efficiently through the development of ly specific business models, leads to rather small an Energy Management System, which is based on incentives to start standardisation activities that the management system model used for the widely could possibly threaten their future businesses. used ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. As a result, it should foster the spread of energy management standards along the manufacturing supply chain.

In the field of climate change mitigation, in addi- tion to the series of ISO 14000 on environmental management, further international standards have been developed since 2006 to help streamlining procedures and harmonising definitions and require- ments. The ISO standards 14064 to 14067 provide now an internationally agreed framework for mea- suring greenhouse gas emissions, while ISO 14069 provides guidance for the application of ISO 14064. International standards have also been developed with a positive impact on climate change mitigation 24 COM(2010) 614, ‘An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era – Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage’ for areas such as building environment design, ener-

36 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? gy efficiency of buildings and sustainability in build- therefore be integrated into the relevant stan- ing construction, intelligent transport systems, solar dardisation processes, which need to be run at the energy, wind turbines, nuclear energy and hydrogen international level. technologies. Furthermore, numerous standards are now taking climate change explicitly into account or are adapted to the new framework conditions gen- 6.2 Flexible, Smart & Customer- erated by climate change. Finally, a methodology to Oriented Technologies estimate the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through cloud technologies is under devel- Current State of Standards opment by ETSI. In their attempt to gain competitive advantage, in particular against low-cost manufacturing compet- Identified Gaps for Standards itors in emerging countries, European manufactur- ing firms will need to keep pace with technological The progressing energy scarcity – or at least its in- development, in particular advanced manufactur- creasing cost – will continuously create pressure on ing technologies that will help them increase qual- the European standardisation system to generate ity and performance of products and production standards, which might help to exploit alternative processes, and enhance flexibility of their overall energy sources and improve the efficiency of tradi- manufacturing system. tional energy production. Many international and European standards already The update of existing standards to integrate climate exist on current manufacturing technologies, e.g. on change mitigation considerations will become more industrial automation systems, machinery and in- crucial, as well as new standards for processes and dustrial robots, industrial measurement and testing technologies for climate change adaptation. methods, control systems, microelectronics, chemi- cal processes, etc. The need to update existing stan- The establishment of a European sustainable man- dards to foster high-performance manufacturing (i.e. ufacturing system requires new measurement stan- faster, more precise and more flexible) is well ac- dards to compare sustainability performance of pro- knowledged by standardisation bodies, and related duction processes, as well as between products, in activities are on going. particular to enable consumers to make enlightened choices. It includes in particular international stan- In particular, standardisation has already begun in dardised and clear definitions and methodology to the field of additive manufacturing (AM), which gath- go beyond existing inconsistencies among the differ- er some of the most promising advanced manufac- ent product environment-related labelling schemes, turing technologies, both at the international level – as stressed by ANEC for example. with the work of the ASTM F42 Technical Committee – and at the European level, where some new ap- In addition to all recycling, reuse and remanufactur- proaches are even tested. Indeed, CEN and CENELEC ing standards for materials (cf. section on materials), created the Standardisation, Innovation and Research standards are needed at the factory level to inte- Platform on Additive Manufacturing (STAIR-AM) as a grate new demanufacturing and disassembly lines meeting point for stakeholders from the AM research that will enable to close the material/product loop. and innovation community and the international and European standardisation bodies to discuss AM stan- dardisation issues. Besides, a dedicated FP7 project, Possible Impacts on the European called SASAM (Support Action for Standardisation in Standardisation System Additive Manufacturing), has been recently created to support the development of additive manufactur- Generally speaking, “standardisation is seen as im- ing in Europe through standardisation. portant in enabling the uptake of eco-innovation and environmental technologies”25. Regarding standardi- sation for the exploitation of renewable energy sour- Identified Gaps for Standards ces, it is particularly important that all stakeholders, in particular SMEs and service providers, get involved Although the trend towards mass customisation and into future standardisation processes. Furthermore, personalisation make standards on product specifi- existing national initiatives are not sufficient, even cations superfluous, new technologies enabling cus- though they are in the interests of leading countries tomer-oriented production generate a further need and companies in that field, and international initia- for more process-oriented standards. tives are required to address this global challenge. In order to respond quickly to changing consumer New stakeholders will be seriously affected by requirements, manufacturing firms would benefit climate change, e.g. farmers, and they should from a high degree of modularity between assembly and disassembly lines, which could be achieved by standardisation. Standards could also foster the re- 25 COM(2008) 133 final, ‘Towards an increased contribution from standardisation to innovation in Europe’ use of machine components and the reprogramming

37 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

of control systems to foster full and fast reconfigu- Regarding human-robot interactions on the plant rability of the plant floor. Further interface standards floor, the ISO 10218 standard on ‘Safety Require- allowing plug and play interconnectivity between ment for Industrial Robots’ was updated in 2011. It machinery, robots and tools are also required. provides requirements and guidelines for ensuring safety in robot design and construction, and for as- suring worker safety during the integration, instal- Possible Impacts on the European lation and maintenance of robots. Standardisation System

Mass customisation is on the one hand challenging Identified Gaps for Standards the standardisation of products and services and will drive it to more generic and performance-based Standards are missing to foster an inclusive work- standards. On the other hand, the technologies and place within factories that would integrate employ- processes to allow customer-oriented production ees and workers with disabilities, and facilitate inser- represent an opportunity for new fields of standard- tion of elderly employees. isation. The new challenge is to create incentives for companies developing and implementing these tech- New standards are needed to enable a closer but nologies to get actively involved in standardisation, safe interaction between humans and robots. and not only create company standards.

The convergence of technologies is clearly challeng- 6.4 Digital Factories ing the current European and international standard- isation systems where sectors are split within and Current State of Standards among different standardisation organisations. Digital factories are using the options made available by ICT technologies, mainly integrated digital model- 6.3 Human-Centered Factories ling, simulation and visualisation tools, to optimise the design and production processes of factories. As Current State of Standards the digitalisation of factories requires a high level of integration and interoperability, this trend gener- In order to attract and keep a high-skilled workforce ates a strong demand for standards, which has been and to respond to consumers social and environmen- acknowledged by standards-setting organisations. tal expectations, factories will be more and more hu- In 2012, the IEC Technical Report 6297426 gave an man-oriented with a focus on making the workplace overview of the numerous standardisation activities safer and more inclusive (e.g. adapted for disabled related to the digital factory in ISO and IEC technical and elderly people), ensuring safe and ‘human-like’ committees, as well as the work of the Internation- interactions with machines and robots, enhancing al Standards on Auditing (ISA). Examples of relevant workers’ performance, and integrating the factory standards are the ISO 1339927, the ISO 1574528, the more closely within its environment. ISO 2357029, the IEC 6198730, etc.

The ISO series of management standards, such as the ISO 14001 environmental standard and the ISO Identified Gaps for Standards 26000 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) stan- dard, are already contributing to answer consumers Existing standards and on-going standardisation and citizens expectations on social and environ- activities should be sufficient to cover the current mental issues. needs related to digital factories. However, contin- uous update will be needed to keep track with next Workplace safety standards are in place for specific generation networks and innovative technologies en- sectors and issues, such as. ISO 18893 on ‘Mobile abling the management of Big Data. Elevating Work Platforms’, ISO 13688 on ‘Protective Clothing’, as well as the CEN standards related to the assessment of workplace exposure to chemical and biological agents and other standards related to oc- cupational health and safety (OH&S) issues. It should be noted that a dedicated CEN Strategic Advisory Board for OH&S was created in 2008 to coordinate related activities among CEN technical committees. 26 IEC Technical Report 62794, ‘Industrial Process Measurement, Control and Automation – Reference Model for Representation of Production Facilities (Digital Factory), 2012

BSI has issued a fast-track standard providing guid- 27 ISO 13399 ‘Cutting tool data representation and exchange’

ance on the management of psychosocial risks in the 28 ISO 15745 ‘Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Open workplace (PAS 1010:2011), with the overall objec- Systems Application Integration Framework’ (several parts) tive to minimise work-related stress and improve the 29 ISO 23570 ‘Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Distributed Installation in Industrial Applications’ overall conditions of employment for everyone. 30 IEC 61987 ‘Industrial Process Measurement and Control – Data Structures and Elements in Process Equipment Catalogues’

38 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Possible Impacts on the European concepts and terminology in asset management, and Standardisation System requirements for an integrated, effective manage- ment system for assets, as well as guidance for the Although the existing stock of standards and on-go- implementation of this system. The ISO/IEC 19770 ing developments related to the digital factory in- standard also focuses on Software Asset Manage- dicate that there are no significant gaps for stan- ment (SAM) which corresponds to “all of the infra- dardisation in that field, the standardisation system structure and processes necessary for the effective is facing other challenges. Indeed, a great number of management, control and protection of the software technical committees from different standards-set- assets […] throughout all stages of their lifecycle”33. ting organisations are involved in this area, and cover a large diversity of technical aspects. Consequently, significant efforts are needed to ensure coordination Identified Gaps for Standards within and between standardisation organisations. It is especially important since the digital factories Despite the existing stock of standards supporting face quite heterogeneous national or even local the supply chain and related technologies like RFID, regulatory framework conditions, which have to be the further globalisation of production and differ- aligned or adapted to the set of relevant standards. entiation of the global value chain will increase the This aspect should be a particular area of concern for demand for the fast and efficient freight transport the specifications of the standards. of components and products worldwide, with an in- creasing pressure from consumers and regulation to minimise the impacts on the environment and 6.5 Logistics & Supply Chain to save energy and material. Consequently, existing standards need to be updated to include these envi- Current State of Standards ronmental and resource-efficiency aspects, and new standards should be developed for innovative tech- With the globalisation of the economy and the fur- nologies that support supply chains. ther differentiation of value chains, the development of smart, efficient and integrated logistic tools and As for infrastructures and production processes, supply chains has become increasingly important, in data and communication exchange standards are particular to answer the challenge of delivering high- required to allow smart logistics tools to communi- ly personalised products and services “just in time” cate with others. and in a secure way, not to mention consumer expec- tations for a minimal environmental impact during this process. Possible Impacts on the European Standardisation System Several international standards have already been developed in relation to supply chain management The global value chain requires standardisation ac- and the risks associated. First and foremost, the ISO tivities on the international level, which integrate all 28000 series31 specifies the requirements for a se- stakeholders being involved in the supply chain. Due curity management system, including those aspects to rather heterogeneous conditions of national and critical to security assurance of the supply chain, and local transport systems, a broad variety of prefer- is applicable to all sizes of organisations. As logistics ences has to be considered. In addition, large multi- and supply chains are increasingly being supported national logistics companies have implemented their by ICT technologies, there are already a large amount private standards to optimise their logistic services. of ISO and IEC standards related to RFID, which en- These dominant players might be reluctant to get able accurate tracking and management of goods involved in formal standardisation processes. Con- in the supply chain. Among them32, ISO/IEC 15961 sequently, the standardisation system is challenged and 15962 provide guidelines and specifications on by integrating various interests from quite heteroge- RFID for item management, while ISO 23389 defines neous stakeholders. RFID for Freight Containers. Within CEN, the CEN/TC 225 technical committee is working on RFID related issues, in compliance with the EC Mandate M/476 on 6.6 Holistic Design ‘ICT applied to RFID systems’. Current State of Standards Asset management is another area where standards have already been developed, such as BSI PAS 55, The design of products and services are of increasing or are currently under development, such as the ISO importance to companies in their attempt to increase 55000 series, which will build on the BSI standard to competitiveness through differentiation, but also to assist companies in improving the management of public authorities, if public interests, like environ- business assets. The series will define the overview, mental, health and safety issues, are affected.

31 ISO 28000:2007, ‘Specification for Security Management Systems for the Supply Chain’

32 A complete list can be found at http://rfid.net/basics/186-iso-rfid- 33 Guide to Software Asset Management, Information Technology standards-a-complete-list- Infrastructure Library

39 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

As a result, companies do not seek standardisation Identified Gaps for Standards in that field since it would lead to undesired harmon- isation of products and services. However, they do Standards optimising the process of designing prod- benefit from standardisation in some functional as- ucts and services could be an objective for standard- pects of design, such as Ecodesign, Design for All, isation. However, companies or experts specialised in Privacy by Design, Security by Design, to comply with this area are not interested in disclosing their knowl- regulation and customer requirements related to edge for the development of formal standards, and sustainability, accessibility and privacy issues. prefer to define private standards.

In the field of Ecodesign, which “aims at improv- The standardisation work in the field of Ecodesign ing the energy and environmental performance of should be extended to the factory level in order to products throughout their life cycle […] by system- foster the design of sustainable supply chains and atically integrating environmental aspects at the production processes. earliest stage of product design”34, the European Commission has issued several mandates following Standards are needed for product design aiming at the first ‘EuP’ Directive of 200535 and later the sec- optimal disassembly (e.g. through the definition of ond Ecodesign Directive36 of 2009. In 2006, the EC criteria and methods for enhanced separability be- Mandate M/341 programmed standardisation work tween parts of a product). in the field of Ecodesign of Energy-Using Products. It was followed by a dozen of more specific man- Standards could help companies to adapt the design dates covering different kinds of products in the field of their products and services according to local re- of Ecodesign, until the M/495 mandate relating to quirements of a given region. harmonised standards in the field of Ecodesign was issued in 2011 to implement a more horizontal ap- proach in that field. The CEN-CENELEC Ecodesign Possible Impacts on the European Coordination Group has been operational since April Standardisation System 2013 to avoid overlap or conflict of activities at the European level. At the international level, it should It remains a challenge for the European Standard- be noted that the IEC Guide 114:2005 on ‘Environ- isation System to involve end users to create the mentally Conscious Design’ aims at integrating envi- best possible standards, in particular to improve ac- ronmental aspects into design and development of cessibility of products and services for disabled and electrotechnical products. elderly people.

As for accessibility issues, the EC Mandate M/473 re- quested ESOs to include the ‘Design for All’ concept, which “encourages manufacturers and service pro- viders to design products and services in such a way that they can be used by everyone”, into their relevant standardisation activities. A Strategic Advisory Group on Accessibility (SAGA), including representatives of national standards bodies, CENELEC and ETSI, as well as organisations representing disabled and old- er persons, was set up in 2011 to help that process. Among its tasks will be the revision of the different CEN, CENELEC or ETSI guidance documents37 related to accessibility.

As for privacy issues, the European Parliament stressed that “the consumer has the right to privacy by opt-in and/or privacy by design, notably through the use of automatic tag disablement at the point of sale, unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise”.

34 SWD(2012) 434 final, ‘Establishment of the working plan for 2002-2014 under the Ecodesign Directive’

35 EU Directive 2005/32/EC of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign requirement for energy-using products (often referred as the ‘EuP’ Directive)

36 EU Directive 2009/125/EC of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products

37 CEN-CENELEC Guide 6 ‘Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities’ CENELEC Guide 28 ‘Accessibility in interfaces in low voltage electrical installations – a guide for standards writers’ ETSI Guide EG 202 116 ‘Human Factors (HF); Guidelines for ICT products and services; “Design for All” ‘

40 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Annex 6.

Background Document on Additive Manufacturing

1. Additive Manufacturing...... 43 1.1 Definition...... 43 1.2 Technologies and Processes...... 43 1.3 The Usage Today...... 45 1.4 Advantages, Challenges and Implications...... 47

2. Additive Manufacturing and Standardisation...... 50 2.1 On-Going Standardisation Initiatives...... 50 2.2 Standards Already Adopted...... 51

Bibliography...... 53

41 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

This Background Document on Additive Manufac- turing was used as an introduction to the subject for all participants during the related case study. It constitutes an example of the kind of background documents which should be prepared in preparation of multidisciplinary expert workshops when apply- ing the Foresight Template for Standardisation.

42 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

1. Additive Manufacturing support (e.g. The Economist, but also CNN, BBC, TED, Wired, TheEngineer.co.uk, Engineering.com, Forbes, etc.) and to its inherent marketing potential for 1.1 Definition people at large (“3D” becoming a buzzword in all kinds of sectors and technologies). 1.1.1 Definitions Fundamentally however, 3D Printing is a specific class Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a layer-by-layer of additive manufacturing systems. For ASTM, this technique of producing 3D objects directly from a class corresponds to the systems using a printing- digital model. like process or all the low-cost desktop systems.

It is “the term given to a group of technologies The two terms are used today with 3D Printing that are capable of creating physical objects from applying more to less demanding applications Computer Aided Design (CAD) files by incrementally targeting mass customisation and additive adding material such that the objects ‘grow’ from manufacturing to professional users of higher end nothing to completion”1. machines. We will use independently the two terms in this document and we will use the acronym AM to The ASTM F42 standardisation committee2 validated signify both. the following definition:

“Additive manufacturing is the process of 1.2 Technologies and Processes joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, 1.2.1 General description as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies.”3 All additive manufacturing technologies imply a series of different steps to produce an object:

1.1.2 Additive Manufacturing or 1. First of all, a model of the object has to be 3D Printing? created on a computer, either from virtual design or from a 3D scan of a physical object Since its creation 30 years ago, several terminologies that needs to be reproduced or adapted; have been used to describe additive manufacturing techniques. Initially used to make prototypes 2. A software takes cross-sections of this object quickly and cheaply, they were first known as “rapid and calculates how each layer has to be prototyping” in the 80s. Then different companies constructed; developed their own terminology such as “solid freeform fabrication”, “rapid manufacturing”, “rapid 3. Then, the 3D printer builds a first layer of the tooling”, “direct manufacturing” or “advanced object, using one of several existing approaches digital manufacturing”. The expression “3D printing” (cf. infra); appeared in the 90s as a de facto term for all low- cost additive manufacturing systems. “Additive 4. After the completion of each layer, it starts the manufacturing” and “additive layer manufacturing” next one and goes on; were eventually introduced in the 2000s. 5. When all the layers have been completed and Among all these terminologies, 3D Printing has possible excess materials cleaned away, the become recently the most popular term to describe final object is ready to use. all additive processes, technologies and applications in manufacturing, thanks especially to heavy media

1 Hopkinson (2010)

2 The ASTM Committee F42 was formed in 2009 to develop standards on Additive Manufacturing Technologies. It is now one of the main international stakeholders doing this task. Cf. Part II for more information.

3 ASTM (2012)

43 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Fig 1. Example of a basic 3D Printer: From Computer-Aided Design to the physical object

Source: RepRap Wiki

1.2.2 Overview of main technologies layers below. It has been developed to aim at the low-cost end of the market; Different approaches are used to build the successive layers, including: - Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) will successively glue together layers of adhesive- - Stereolithography (SLA) was developed by coated paper, plastic or metal laminates which are Californian company 3D Systems in 1986 as the then cut to shape with a laser cutter. The process pioneered approach for the creation of physical is fast and accurate but does not allow complex prototypes. This fast and accurate technology forms. consists in using an ultraviolet laser to make photopolymer resin harden in the required pattern of the layer; 1.2.3 Process classification

- Selective Laser-Sintering (SLS) uses a These processes can be differentiated according to high-temperature laser to melt and fuse several characteristics, which will give them specific together powdered ceramics, metal, glass, or advantages for different kinds of market (prototyping, thermoplastics. It enables the production of very tooling, direct part manufacturing, maintenance and complex forms but it is slow and the granularity repair, etc.)4: and porosity remain high; - The materials they can utilize: polymers, metals, - Inkjet Printing can be used in different ways. The glass, sandstone, paper; heads of the 3D printer can squirt a liquid binder onto a bed of white powder in the areas where - The build speed; the layer needs to be solid, and then moves to next layer. They can also deposit extremely thin - The dimensional accuracy and quality of the layers of two types of liquid photopolymer, one surface finish; type where the cross-section is required to be solid and the other where it is not. An ultraviolet - The material properties of the produced parts light-source will then harden the first polymer and (e.g. robustness); transform the second one in a gel-like state to provide structural support; - The machine and material costs;

- Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) involves - Accessibility and safety related to complexity unwinding a plastic filament or metal wire from of operation; a coil and feeding it through a moving extrusion nozzle, heating the material to melt it and deposit - Other capabilities, such as multiple colours. it in the desired pattern on the build tray. The material then hardens to form the solid parts required in each layer. As subsequent layers are

added the molten thermoplastic fuses to the 4 Scott (2012)] based on Wolhers (2011) and Hartke (2011)]

44 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Processes have been standardised by ASTM F42 into the following seven classes:

Fig 2. Additive Process Example Companies Materials Market manufacturing process types and attributes, 3D Systems (US), Vat Photopolymorization Photopolymers Prototyping including companies, Envisiontec (Germany) materials utilised in Objet (Israel), machines, and typical Polymers, Prototyping, Material Jetting 3D Systems (US), markets Waxes Casting Patterns Solidscape (US) 3D Systems (US), Polymers, Prototyping, Source: Scott (2012) based Binder Jetting ExOne (US), Metals, Casting Molds, on the work of ASTM F42 Voxeljet (Germany) Foundry Sand Direct Part Stratasys (US), Material Extrusion Bits from Bytes, Polymers Prototyping RepRap EOS (Germany), Polymers, Prototyping, Powder Bed Fusion 3D Systems (US), Metals Direct Part Arcam (Sweden) Fabrisonic (US), Paper, Prototyping, Sheet Lamination Micor (Ireland) Metals Direct Part

Optomec (US), Repair, Directed Energy Deposition Metals POM (US) Direct Part

1.3 The Usage Today driven production of spare parts”6. They also benefit from some significant competitive advantages 1.3.1 Manufacturers and providers compared to traditional manufacturing in terms of lightness, freedom of design, complexity-friendliness 3D printers are currently being manufactured by a and customisation. Examples of big industries using range of US and European companies, among them 3D Printers in their direct manufacturing process pioneer companies such as 3D Systems, Stratasys are Siemens and BMW in Germany, Nokia in Finland, and Z Corporation in the USA, EOS in Germany and Rolls-Royce in the UK, EADS and Airbus in Europe. Arcam in Sweden. Other European medium-size additive manufacturers are for example Materialize 3D printers are now being used also by the public in Belgium, Materials Solutions and 3T RPD in the at large, especially tinkerers willing to explore UK. Some manufacturing companies exist in China, the new possibilities offered by these affordable Japan, Israel (e.g. Objet), South Korea or India. manufacturing technologies. They are also used by a wide range of professionals in SMEs to Besides, more and more start-ups are selling low- manufacture different kinds of products serving cost 3D printers and/or providing 3D printing services their businesses (cf. 3.d.). Architects, designers for the public at large in an attempt to follow a mass and artists are using 3D printers to create more customisation business model. Examples of these innovative, complex or disruptive design and companies in Europe are Digital Forming, MakieLab, explore matter in an artistic way. Bits from Bytes in the UK, Fabbster in Germany, Sculpteo in France, Uformia in the Norway, Ultimaker in The Netherlands. 1.3.3 Market value and share

3D printers now range in price from under $500 The global market for additive manufacturing has (“home-use 3D printers”5) to more than $1 million grown from $485M (374M€) in 2002 to $1.3 billion for the more complex industrial machineries. (1b€) in 2010 and is predicted to double by 2015 and increase fourfold by 2020.7

1.3.2 Main users Market growth in terms of machine sales has been greatest for the low cost machines: sales Initially used for rapid prototyping and modelling, have increased from 500 in 2001 to 4000 units in an increasing number of industries are using AM 2008.8 For higher end machines, sales growth has technologies to manufacture directly final parts been less impressive. that satisfy to the mechanical requirements. The aerospace, automotive and electronics industries have found a particular interest in AM because of its “potential to reduce parts production and process 6 Gausemeier (2011) costs, shorten cycle times, and better enable demand- 7 All figures in this section from Wohlers Associates reports

8 Wohlers 2009, State of the Industry, Annual Worldwide Progress Report, 5 A recent list is available at www.3ders.org/pricecompare/3dprinters Wohlers Associates, USA, 2009

45 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Fig 3. AM-market share in Whole market several industries Part of the total AM- Industry AM-market Industry volume of the market volume (%) volume ($) Source: Wohlers (2010) industry ($) Aerospace (2010) 9.6 115 million 475 billion

Armament (2008) 6.8 70 million 385 billion

Automotive (2009) 17.5 190 million 3000 billion

Consumer Products (2009) 24.1 260 million

Dental & Medical (2008) 14.7 157 million

Regarding global market shares, a good indicator - Parts of industrial products that are complex is the destination of all industrial additive or need to be light, which is particularly relevant manufacturing systems sold worldwide in 2012. The in sectors like aerospace & defence, automotive, etc.; USA arrives in first position with 36,9 % of the global shares, followed directly by Germany (14,2 %) and - Products with embedded electronics, such as further the UK in seventh position (2,6 %). electronic sensors (RFID) and controls.

In a more distant future, bio-printing with the ability to 1.3.4 Products print organic tissues, kidneys13, hearts and the related blood vessels14 could have a tremendous impact Model making and rapid prototyping are still on health. Micro- and nano-additive manufacturing the most popular uses of 3D Printing with 80 % would also multiply the possibilities offered by of current outputs because of the competitive these technologies. The printing of buildings is being advantages of AM in this application. As an tested at research centres such as the University example, it used to take Timberland one week to of Loughborough Additive Manufacturing Research turn the design of a new shoe sole into a model, Group whereas the printing of a whole airplane is at a cost of $1,200. Using a 3-D printer it has cut explored by Airbus15. the time to 90 minutes and the cost to $35.9 It is predicted that the time it will take to take a digital design from concept to production will drop by 50% 1.3.5 Recent trends - 80% by 202010. Some recent trends show that these technologies However, the proportion of final products is quickly and their applications could be at a tipping point in increasing and could reach, according to Terry Wohlers11, their development: a 50 % share in 2020. Indeed, additive manufacturing has found already applications in a broad range of - Increased attention in the popular media industries, from aerospace to dentistry, including (in particular The Economist, but also CNN, BBC, jewellery, design and fashion. The first final products TED, Wired, TheEngineer.co.uk, Engineering.com, that are likely to know the biggest development are: Forbes, etc.);

- Customised items that fit in with the - Great number of workshops, forums biological features of an individual, such as and exhibitions worldwide (even though medical implants, dental crowns, prosthetics, coordination remains fragmented), e.g. for 2012, hearing aids, stents for unblocking arteries, AM International Conference, AEPR, TCT Show, specialised surgical tools in the medical field but 3D Printshow in London, RapidTech, EuroMold in also sport protective gears, body armour, etc.; Frankfurt, ICAT, etc.16;

- Objects where personal preference is - Growing personal use (thanks to home-use important and “totems”12, such as fashion 3D printers available at $1,000) and open related products, customised toys and gadgets, collaboration among tinkerers, designers and jewellery, furniture, lighting systems, customised start-ups (FabLab, RepRap project, online forums); mobile phones, food printing, etc.; - International growth of the sector (USA, Europe, Australia, South Africa, Japan, China);

9 The Economist, 2009, Case History: A Factory on Your Desk, Technology Quarterly 3 2009. 13 Atala A., 2011, Printing a Human Kidney, TED.com, March 2011 10 The Economist, 2011, 3-D Printing: The Printed World, 10th February 2011. 14 BBC News Technology, 2011, Artificial blood vessels created on a 3D printer. September 16, 2011. 11 Idem 15 Forbes, 2012, Airbus Explores Building Planes With Giant 3D Printers. July 12 Institute for the Future, 2011, The Future of Open Fabrication: 2012 “Personalised fabricated objects have the potential to become totems and be imbued by their possessors with spiritual significance» 16 Cf. Bibliography for websites on these forums and workshops.

46 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

- Increasing number and development of - Reduced costs as a consequence of the reduction standardisation initiatives (ASTM: F42, ISO: TC in material and energy. Besides, these technologies 261, AFNOR: UNM/920, SASAM, etc.). foster on-demand business models that require less storage and inventory. However, it has to be - Increased government support (USA17, UK18, put into perspective with the cost of materials and South Africa, etc.); the running costs of the machines;

- Less pollution even though it depends heavily 1.4 Advantages, Challenges and on the materials used which are, for the time Implications being, mainly plastics. As a whole, the demand- driven production of spare parts could increase 1.4.1 Main advantages the life duration of many products and reduce waste. Besides, the potential for more localised Additive manufacturing technologies present some productions and the reduction of transportation comparative advantages compared to traditional costs could also reduce carbon-dioxide emissions; manufacturing: - Multi-material direct manufacturing: Embed - Less material needed: Being additive, these electronics can be directly deposited within technologies need only (almost) the exact quantity the body of the manufactured part or product. of materials that compose the final item, to the Applications include energy storage devices, difference of subtractive manufacturing where much electronic sensors and electronic controls22; waste is produced in the process. AM reduces waste enormously, requiring as little as one tenth of the - Complexity-friendly: The layer-by-layer amount of material compared to other production manufacturing approach and the inherent techniques19. Besides, the freedom of design inherent “freedom of design” allow the production of more to 3D Printing enables the use of less material; complex parts and consequently, the realisation of more efficient designs particularly important - Re-use of materials possible: A possible concern in aerodynamics (wing-shape optimisation) accompanying the foreseen mass customisation or thermodynamics (efficient heating, cooling of these technologies is the waste coming from channels). More high-value products with high the increased production of all types of gadgets complexity can be produced in an easier way; by the public at large as well as the trend to throw away objects more easily (including if some error - Lightness of final products: The new possibilities occurs in the process of manufacturing). However, offered for optimal design enable lighter final these technologies offer possibilities to re-use the products, which are particularly important in raw material which consists in powder for most sectors such as aerospace. Indeed, “a reduction of applications. Tinkerers are already collaborating 1kg in the weight of an airliner will save around online to develop solutions to reuse feedstock. For $3,000-worth of fuel a year and by the same example, “a hack of the MakerBot home printing token carbon-dioxide emissions”; system [named RecycleBot] allows users to make their own feedstock from used milk bottles”.20 - Time saving: 3D printers have decreased Besides, current work at Cornell University on “rapid considerably the time needed for manufacturing fabrication of physical voxels21” has for purpose a prototype or a model and manufacturers have “to print future products by precisely adhering been using these specific applications for more thousands of individual microscopic spheres made than 30 years. They now enable as well to save of a wide variety of different materials”; time for the production of high-tech final parts in small series; - Less energy required: Additive manufacturing allows in particular a massive reduction in highly - Customisation: 3D printers allow consumers or energy-consuming tooling and assembly lines; professional users to customise a standard product by modifying its CAD design format (obtained by download from the company’s website or by 3D 17 In the USA, President Obama announced in August 2012 the creation of the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) in scanner for example); Youngstown, Ohio that will serve as a platform between more than forty companies, nine research universities, five community colleges, and eleven non-profit organisations to bridge the gap between basic research - Easier and cheapest entry to manufacturing: and product development., provide shared assets to SMEs and training to employees. The financial support is US$70 million with $30 million in AM reduces the cost of manufacturing (at least federal funding and $40 million from the winning consortium. for a small series of product) and enables anyone 18 In the UK, David Willets, Science Minister, announced in October 2012 to test their invention in their own garage. Start- a new £7 million public investment to promote innovation in additive manufacturing and “help UK companies (to) make the step change ups can access easily and affordably professional necessary to reach new markets and gain competitive advantage”. This fund is to be added a £20 million of previous Technology Strategy Board manufacturing solutions, through the acquisition support for additive manufacturing innovation. of a mid-range 3D printer or the rent of a more 19 The Economist, 2011, Print Me a Stradivarius. February 10, 2011 sophisticated 3D printer on an ad hoc basis. For 20 Institute For The Future (2011)

21 A «voxel» is the physical equivalent of an image pixel. 22 Scott (2011)

47 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

Jeremy Rifkin, AM “has the potential to greatly rules need also to be standardised. 3D scanners reduce the cost of producing hard goods, making have to be improved and “haptic design interfaces” entry costs sufficiently lower to encourage hundreds need to be developed; of thousands of mini manufacturers [SMEs] to compete effectively in regional, continental and - Costs: apart from the cost of materials, running global markets”23. costs and cost transparency of the processes are also a concern;

1.4.2 Main challenges and barriers to - Process control, understanding and modelling: adoption “Methods are needed for in-process monitoring and closed-loop feedback to help improve Several studies24 have already identified the main consistency, repeatability, and uniformity across barriers to the adoption of additive manufacturing machines [and] new physics-based models of AM technologies and the resulting challenges. Key processes are needed to understand and predict obstacles are mainly related to materials and design material properties such as surface roughness and tools but not only: fatigue”28. In situ sensors for thermal control and better process controls for downtime reduction are - New (multi-) material development: For the two areas to investigate29; time being, the narrow range of materials used in 3D printing (mainly plastics, resins and metals) - Machine qualification and modularity: Current limits its applicability. The surface finish and closed architecture controllers and machine accuracy could be seriously improved with the modules prevent the users to test and improve development of new materials. Multi-material build routines and materials, and qualification at printing is also required to use the full potential a machine or a process level has to be improved30; of these technologies (e.g. integrating electric wires, batteries and motors) and some materials such as carbon focus the attention since it can be 1.4.3 Implications configured in allotropes ranging from super-soft graphite to ultra-hard diamond; Additive manufacturing has a wide range of implications: - Cheaper materials: The cost of current materials is expensive, with classic thermoplastics like ABS - New business model: The current concept of and polylactic acid reaching $30 a pound and “economies of scale” will be seriously undermined metals even more25. Research is on-going and since it will be as cheap to produce single items some recently developed material such as sugar/ as it to produce thousands of items31. Besides, maltodextrin ceramic powder costs $1 a pound26; the costs and risks associated with manufacturing will be reduced32. “A world of open fabrication will - Material specifications: Databases are needed transform the role of the retailer” who will need on material properties when applied in the differ- to “offer access to a much wider range of stock- ent AM processes. This will imply an increasing ef- keeping units”33. Extreme customisation will offer fort from material suppliers, researchers and users new development opportunities for manufacturers to share and organise the data on material speci- and designers; fications and properties. An open and collaborative approach might enter in confrontation with a more - New production model: AM removes the need restricted approach on IPRs; for production lines, and reduces the importance of cheap labour in many production cycles. This may - Design tools, software and rules: The current change the geographic distribution of production offer of CAD software27 is not adapted for the and foster the repatriation of manufacturing two targeted markets of AM. When considering capacity from low-wage countries to the mass customisation, there is a need for more distribution location. Production will be undertaken easy-to-use and affordable 3D CAD software as closer to the customer with “a fabricator in every well as web-enabled co-design environments. village”, rather than in large and centralised When considering professional applications, more production facilities. The demand-driven model sophisticated tools allowing optimal shape design accompanying this evolution would also mean that and integrating material properties according to processes used have yet to be developed. Design

23 Rifkin (2012) 28 Scott (2011( for the section on “Process control, understanding and modelling“ and “Machine qualification and modularity” 24 For example, Institute For The Future (2011) and Heinz Nixdorf Institute (2011) 29 Bourrel (2009)

25 The Economist, 2011, 3D Printing: Difference Engine: Making It!, November 30 Scott (2011) 25, 2011 31 The Economist, 2011, Print Me a Stradivarius. February 10, 2011. 26 Idem 32 The Economist, 2011, The Printed World. February 10, 2011 27 Current free or low-cost 3D modelling software are for example Google SketchUp, 3Dtin, Blender, OpenSCAD or Tinkercad. 33 Institute For The Future (2011)

48 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

stockpiles of products are no longer necessary34; become less “risky” and expensive42. It also allows “The Boston Consulting Group reckons that in the creation of parts in shapes that conventional areas such as transport, computers, fabricated techniques cannot achieve, resulting in new, much metals and machinery, 10-30% of the goods that more efficient designs in areas such as aircraft America now imports from China could be made wings or heat exchangers43; at home by 2012, boosting American output by $ 20-55 billion a year”35; - Open-source collaboration on designs for objects and hardware are already a massive - Infrastructure & logistics: AM reduces the phenomenon in AM thanks to FabLabs44, amount of conventional industrial infrastructure – hackerspaces (communities of technophile machine tools, testing equipment, related factory tinkerers), worldwide collaborative projects (e.g. hardware, assembly lines – that companies require the RepRap project45) and online forums such as to be considered serious industrial players36; Thingiverse for sharing user-created 3D files or Fab@Home to exchange ideas about hardware - New distribution of jobs: AM is less labour- and software; The high level of iteration on intensive than traditional manufacturing and development can boost creativity and innovation consequently, it is unclear whether the repatriation within these communities; of manufacturing facilities in European countries would be sufficient to offset this job loss. A more - Standardisation: The implementation of certain implication is the new skill distribution of AM technologies changes the concept of jobs with the need for more high-skilled workers standardisation in production. No longer will such as engineers, software developers and there be a “fixed menu” of products, based upon designers; “standard” components. Customisation to meet the requirements of the individual or the market - Accessibility of manufacturing: Additive will be greatly enabled46; technologies make manufacturing more accessible37 which will be both beneficial for small - Intellectual property: 3D Printing could have a players in industrial countries and for nations in major impact on intellectual property, as objects the early stages of industrial development in their described in a digital file are much easier to copy, attempt to “leapfrog” the traditional route towards distribute and pirate47. The very same scenario production capabilities38; that occurs with the music and movie industry could happen with the development of new non- - Gap between design and production: AM commercial models and an increasing tension reduces immensely the gap between design and between hampering innovation and encouraging production since “manufacturers will be able to piracy. ThePirateBay, a well-known actor in peer- say to their customers ‘Tell us what you want’ and to-peer music and movie sharing has already then they will be able to make [specific products] included “physibles” (printable object files) in its for them”39. “Now engineers can think of an idea, catalogue of downloadable files. Public Knowledge, print it, hold it in their hand, share it with other whose work aims to keep the Internet open, people, change it and go back and print another published in 2010 a White Paper to try to prevent one”40; hostile use of IP legislation48;

- Creativity and innovation: AM opens the - Risks: 3D Printing is likely to encourage the door to a period of much deeper creativity and production of “substandard goods” as well innovation. Product developers will be able to as “crapjets” (for “crappy objects”) defined as design “off piste” becoming freer to devise new “unwanted waste created by unskilled designers goods in fields ranging from medical devices to and fabricated using inferior materials with home electronics41. Trying out new products will poor surface resolution”. “Physical spam” could increase if “people simply use 3D printers with abandon, producing a large number of objects 34 Neil Hopkinson, University of Loughborough Advanced Manufacturing 49 Research Group, as reported in BBC News Business, 2011, Will 3D printing of infinitesimally small value” . There is also the revolutionise manufacturing?, July 27, 2001 risk of dangerous items (e.g. guns50) or products 35 The Economist, 2012, Manufacturing the Third Industrial Revolution. April 21, 2012 42 The Economist, 2011, Print Me a Stradivarius. February 10, 2011

36 Prof. Brent Stucker, University of Louiseville in Kentucky USA from 43 Idem Financial Times, 2011, Production processes: A lightbulb moment, December 28, 2011 44 A FabLab (Fabrication Laboratory) is a small-scale workshop offering digital fabrication facilities 37 The Economist, 2011, The Printed World. February 10, 2011 45 38 The RepRap project is an initiative to develop a 3D printer that can print most Prof. Brent Stucker, University of Louiseville in Kentucky USA from of its own component. It was founded in 2005 by Dr Adrian Bowyer at the Financial Times, 2011, Production processes: A lightbulb moment, December University of Bath in the UK and has taken on a life of its own since then. 28, 2011 46 The Economist, 2011, The Printed World. February 10, 2011 39 Additive Manufacturing Consortium from Financial Times, 2011, Production processes: A lightbulb moment, December 28, 2011 47 The Economist, 2011, Print Me a Stradivarius. February 10, 2011

40 David Reis, Chief Executive of Object Geometries quoted in The Economist, 48 Weinberg (2010) 2009, Case History: A Factory on Your Desk. Technology Quarterly, Q3 2009 49 Institute For The Future (2011) 41 David Abbott, General Electric from Financial Times, 2011, Production processes: A lightbulb moment, December 28, 2011 50 The Telegraph (2012)

49 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

affecting health and safety (e.g. ABS plastics) - At the international level, the ASTM F42 initiative being produced; was launched in 2009 by ASTM International, a US standardisation organisation, and four - Education and awareness: 3D printing technical subcommittees are now working towards allows to engage a broad population in science, standards in terminology, materials and processes, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) design and data formats, and test methods. F42 topics. In particular, additive manufacturing meets twice a year in January and July. Four fosters better visualisation and improved hand- standards were produced to date and several on experiences, which ultimately “helps students are in progress. They are available in the Volume [to] better comprehend complex, difficult-to- 10.04 in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. understand topics such as chemical and biological phenomena”51. AM can “bring the manufacturing - Work under progress is summarised in the experience to a personal level”52. following table:

Fig 4. Work of ASTM F42 Sub-Committees Sub-committee Work under progress

Source: IMS-MTP (2012) Selection and definition of terms, check of usability in other languages, comparison to Terminology existing standards

Development of standard protocols for AM material conformance (raw material data delivered by suppliers, requirements for materials, requirements for information, Materials and processes guaranteed mechanical properties of parts, quality issues, etc.) and process capabilities and performance (system description, calibration methodology, energy sources, beam delivery systems, definition of periodical maintenance, etc.)

Design Development of design guidelines, data standards and file formats

Development of standard protocols that will be used to characterise AM systems, materials, and parts (selection of applicable standards, definition of needed data, Test methods measurement methods of mechanical properties, porosity and surface quality measurement, etc.)

A cooperation agreement was signed with the ISO so 2. Additive Manufacturing that ASTM standards can be fast-tracked as a ISO final draft international standard (FDIS). Standards and Standardisation will be mutually referenced in the publications of each other organisation in compliance with each 2.1 On-Going Standardisation organisation’ policies and directives in order to Initiatives eliminate duplication of effort;

Several initiatives have emerged quite recently to - At the European level, the SASAM (Support Action develop standards for Additive Manufacturing: for Standardisation in Additive Manufacturing) was initiated in September 2012 to “drive the growth of - At the international level, the ISO TC 261 AM to efficient and sustainable industrial processes technical committee was proposed by by integrating and coordinating standardisation Germany and accepted by the ISO international activities for Europe by creating and supporting a community. Four working groups are working standardisation organisation in the field of AM”; on technologies (WG1), methods, processes and materials (WG2), tests and methods (WG3) and - In France, the UNM 920 committee of AFNOR digital processes (WG4). Participating countries (Agence française de normalisation) was launched are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the by UNM (Union de normalisation de la mécanique) Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the USA to develop standards on Additive Manufacturing. and observing countries are the Czech Republic, One norm was published in March 2012 and eight Finland, Israel, New-Zealand, South Africa, South norms are currently being developed53. UNM 920 Korea and Switzerland; wants to be proactive for proposals at the ISO international level; 51 Scott (2012)

52 Idem 53 Cf. www2.afnor.org/espace_normalisation/structure.aspx?commid=2860

50 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

- In Germany, the NA 145-04-01 AA is the national - Scope: Definition, description and regular revision mirror committee of ISO/TC 261 within the DIN of terms, nomenclature, and acronyms57. (Deutsches Institut für Normung). The DIN has in charge the Secretariat of the ISO TC 261 technical The UNM 920 Committee of AFNOR published in committee; March 2012 the XP E67-010 technical specifications on powders for AM58. - In the UK, the AMT/8 is the BSI (British Standards Institute) committee developing standards for Beyond these published standards, ISO is currently Additive Manufacturing. Four sub-committees developing the following AM standards (still at an are working on data processing, machine safety, early stage): materials & test methods, and processing methods. ; - ISO 17296-1 on Terminology;

- ISO 17296-2 on Methods, processes and materials; 2.2 Standards Already Adopted - ISO 17296-3 on Test methods; ASTM has already developed the following Additive Manufacturing standards: - ISO 17296-4 on Data processing

- F2915-12 - Standard Specification orf Additive Manufacturing File Format (AMF) Version 1.1 (Design);

Scope: Description of a framework for a new interchange format (AMF) that contains provisions for representing color, texture, material, substructure, and other properties (to the difference of the current STL format). It will facilitate the switch “evolving from producing primarily single-material, homogenous shapes to producing multimaterial geometries in full color with functionally graded materials and microstructures”. The AMF File Format is “based on XML (an open standard markup language”, and is “about half the size of a compressed STL file”54.

- F2921-11e2 - Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing - Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies (Test Methods)

- Scope: Definition and description of terminology on the basis of and in complement of the ISO 841 (Industrial automation systems and integration – Numerical control of machines – Coordinate system and motion nomenclature) 55

- F2924-12 – Standard Specification orf Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6 Aluminium-4 Vanadium with Powder bed Fusion (Materials and Processes)

- Scope: Indication of the classifications of the components, the feedstock used to manufacture Class 1, 2, and 3 components, the microstructure of the components, and identification of the mechanical properties, chemical composition, and minimum tensile properties of the components56.

- F2792-12a - Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies (Terminology)

54 Cf. www.astm.org/Standards/F2915.htm 57 Cf. www.astm.org/Standards/F2792.htm 55 Cf. www.astm.org/Standards/F2921.htm 58 Cf.www2.afnor.org/espace_normalisation/structure. 56 Cf. www.astm.org/Standards/F2924.htm aspx?commid=2860#npubliees

51 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

52 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

Bibliography

Reports - IMS and MTP, 2012, Program structure - Fields of research for ASTM F42 initiative, 2012 - ASTM Standard F2792, 2012, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies. ASTM www.ims.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IMS- International. MTP-Fields-of-research-V2.doc www.astm.org/Standards/F2972.htm - Institute For The Future, 2011, The Future of Open Fabrication, Technology Horizons Program, August - Bourell, D. L., Leu, M. C. and Rosen, D. W., 2009, 2011 Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing. Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing. University of Texas www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1390_ at Austin, 2009. FutureOfOpenFab.FINAL_sm.pdf http://wohlersassociates.com/roadmap2009.pdf - Lipson, H., 2011, The Shape of Things to Come: Frontiers in Additive Manufacturing. Frontiers of - Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A. and Haufe, P., 2010, The Engineering, edited by NAE, 33-44. Washington, Intellectual Property implications of low-cost 3D DC: National Academies Press. printing. ScriptEd, vol. 7, n° 1, pp. 5-31. www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=57879. www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw. asp - Lipson, H. and Kurman, M., 2010, Factory@Home: The Emerging Economy of Personal Manufacturing. - Gausemeier, J., Echterhoff, N., Kokoschka, M. and Overview and Recommendations. US Office of Wall. M., 2011, Thinking ahead the Future of Additive Science and Technology Policy, December 2010. Manufacturing. Analysis of Promising Industries. Heinz Nixdorf Institute, 2011. http://web.mae.cornell.edu/lipson/FactoryAtHome.pdf http://dmrc.uni-paderborn.de/uploads/media/DMRC- - Rifkin, J., 2012, Industrial Policy Communication Studie_web.pdf Update – A Contribution to Growth and Economic Recovery, September 2012. - Hopkinson, N., 2010, Additive Manufacturing: Technology and Applications. Loughborough, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/initiatives/mission- UK: British Educational Communications and growth/#h2-5 Technology Agency. - Rumpala, Y., 2012, Additive Manufacturing as http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1512/1/becta_2010_ Global Remanufacturing of Politics, Université de emergingtechnologies_3dprinting_report.pdf Nice, ERMES.

- Executive Office of the President of the United http://millenniumjournal.files.wordpress. States, 2012, Report to the President on Capturing com/2012/10/rumpala-additive-manufacturing-as- Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced global-remanufacturing-of-politics.pdf Manufacturing. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, July 2012 - Scott, J., Gupta, N., Weber, C., Newsome, S., Wohlers, T. and Caffrey, T., 2012, Additive Manufacturing: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ Status and Opportunities. Science and Technology ostp/pcast_amp_steering_committee_report_final_ Policy Institute, March 2012. july_17_2012.pdf www.ida.org/stpi/occasionalpapers/papers/ AM3D_33012_Final.pdf

53 ANNEXES / JRC Foresight Study

- Shipp, Stephanie S., 2012, Emerging Global Trends - Forbes, 2012, Airbus Explores Building Planes With in Advanced Manufacturing. Institute for Defense Giant 3D Printers. July 2012 Analyses, March 2012. www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/07/11/ www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Emerging_ airbus-explores-a-future-where-planes-are-built- Global_Trends_in_Advanced_Manufacturing.pdf with-giant-3d-printers

- Sissons, A., Thompson, S., 2012, Three Dimensional - Grimm, T., 2012, 3D Printing: Speaking the Policy. Why Britain Needs a Policy Framework for 3D Language. Engineering.com, 2012 Printing. Big Innovation Centre, October 2012. www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/ http://biginnovationcentre.com/Assets/Docs/ ArticleID/3918/3D-Printing-Speaking-the-Language. Reports/3D%20printing%20paper_FINAL_15%20 aspx Oct.pdf - Knight, M., 2012, 3-D Printing: The Shape of Things - Stanford University, 2012, From Ink-Jet Printing to Come, CNN.com, July 24, 2012 to Personal Fabrication. Delta Scan: The Future of Science and Technology, 2005-2055, Website http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/tech/3d-printing- consulted on November 12, 2012. manufacturing-technology/index.html

humanitieslab.stanford.edu/2/Home - Park, R., 2012, 3D Printing Barriers To Adoption. Engineering.com, August 2012 - Weinberg, M., 2010, It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/ the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology. ArticleID/4666/3D-Printing-Barriers-to-Adoption- Public Knowledge, November 2010. Part-1.aspx

www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if- - Pool, S., 2012, A 21st Century Approach to they-dont-screw-it-up Manufacturing Innovation. Scienceprogress.org, August 24, 2012. - Wohlers, T., 2009, State of the Industry - Annual Worldwide Progress Report, Wohlers Associates, http://scienceprogress.org/2012/08/a-21st-century- USA, 2009 approach-to-manufacturing-innovation

- Wohlers, T., 2011, Wohlers Report 2011: Additive - The Economist, 2009, Case History: A Factory on Manufacturing and 3D Printing, State of the Industry. Your Desk. Technology Quarterly, Q3 2009. Wohlers Associates, USA, 2011 www.economist.com/node/14299512 - Wohlers, T., 2012, Additive Manufacturing in the United States. Wohlers Associates, USA, 2012 - The Economist, 2011, Print Me a Stradivarius. February 10, 2011.

Newspapers and websites www.economist.com/node/18114327

- BBCC News Business, 2011, Will 3D printing - The Economist, 2011, The Printed World. February revolutionise manufacturing?, July 27, 2001 10, 2011.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14282091 www.economist.com/node/18114221

- BBC News Technology, 2011, Artificial blood vessels - The Economist, 2012, Solid Print. April 21, 2012. created on a 3D printer. September 16, 2011. www.economist.com/node/21552892 www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14946808 - The Economist, 2012, The Shape of Things to Come, - Financial Times, 2011, Production processes: A October 12, 2011. lightbulb moment, December 28, 2011 www.economist.com/node/21541382 www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b59678b4-313b-11e1-a62a- 00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DeswfRqf - The Economist, 2012, Manufacturing the Third Industrial Revolution. April 21, 2012.

www.economist.com/node/21553017

54 How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025?

- The Telegraph, 2012, Making Guns In Your Garage: Main related workshops, forums How 3D Printers Will Revolutionise the Manufacture and conferences in 2012 of Deadly Weapons, October 5, 2012 - 3D Printshow, London, 19-21 October 2012 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ micwright/100007925/making-guns-in-your- www.3dprintshow.com garage-how-3d-printers-will-revolutionise-the- manufacture-of-deadly-weapons/ - Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing International Conference - The New York Times, 2010, 3-D Printing Spurs a Manufacturing Revolution. September 13, 2010 www.am-conference.com www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print. - Asssises Européennes de Prototypage Rapide html?pagewanted=all (AEPR), Paris, 12-14 June 2012

www.code80.net/afpr/content/assises/2012/AN/v_ index.htm More articles on 3D printing are available via www.3ders.org/home/quick-news.html - EuroMold, Frankfurt, 27-30 November 2012

www.euromold.com/index.php?id=51 Some videos as an introduction to Additive Manufacturing - International Conference on Additive Technologies (ICAT), Maribor, 19-21 September 2012 - Harouni, L., 2011, A Primer on 3D Printing, TED.com, January 2012 www.icat.rapiman.net www.ted.com/talks/lisa_harouni_a_primer_on_3d_ - RapidTech, Erfurt, Germany, 08-09 May 2012 printing.html http://uk.rapidtech.de/index.html - EMERCE, 2011, Interview with Adrian Bowyer on 3D Printing - TCT Show, Birmingham, 25-26 September 2012 www.youtube.com/watch?v=QazPnixm44M www.tctshow.com

- Oxman, N., 2012, Revolution in Art & Design using 3D Printing Credits www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaklQ2wiHG0 - Figure 1: Adrian Bowyer (GNU Free Documentation License) - Atala A., 2011, Printing a Human Kidney, TED.com, March 2011 www.reprap.org/wiki/File:Mendel.jpg#filehistory www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_ human_kidney.html

- New Scientist, 2011, Print Your Own Flute www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlq5R84TlVw

- CEN Online, 2011, How To Print A 3-D Object With Laser Sintering www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9-QEo-qDk

- Stratasys, 2008, Fused Deposition Modelling Process. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPtkOmP_HoA

- 3D Systems, 2009, The Process of Stereolithography www.youtube.com/watch?v=iceiNb_1E0I

55

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu.

How to obtain EU publications

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

European Commission

EUR 27210 EN - Joint Research Centre - Foresight and Behavioural Insights Unit Title: How will standards facilitate new production systems in the context of EU innovation and competitiveness in 2025? Authors: Fabiana Scapolo, Peter Churchill, Vincent Viaud, Monika Antal, Hugo Crdova, Peter De Smedt

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2015 — 56 pp. — 21.0 x 29.7 cm

EUR - Scientific and Technical Research series - ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

ISBN 978-92-79-47771-3 (pdf) doi:10.2788/253732 LB-NA-27210-EN-N

JRC Mission

As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle.

Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addresses key societal challenges while stimulating innovation through developing new methods, tools and standards, and sharing its know-how with the Member States, the scientific community and international partners.

Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation

JRC Science Hub: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

doi: 10.2788/253732 ISBN 978-92-79-47771-3